Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Var Orient Shipping Vs Achaso

    Uploaded by

    prime
    102 views1 page
    The petitioners filed a complaint against crew members for allegedly violating their employment contracts. After the parties agreed to submit position papers, only the private respondents submitted papers. The POEA administrator then dismissed the case. Petitioners claimed they did not receive the decision and filed a motion to recall the writ of execution. The administrator denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not denied due process. They failed to submit evidence that their lawyer did not receive the decision. Additionally, the parties had agreed to submit the case for decision after filing position papers, so there was an opportunity to be heard.

    Original Description:

    var

    Original Title

    Var orient shipping vs achaso

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners filed a complaint against crew members for allegedly violating their employment contracts. After the parties agreed to submit position papers, only the private respondents submitted papers. The POEA administrator then dismissed the case. Petitioners claimed they did not receive the decision and filed a motion to recall the writ of execution. The administrator denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not denied due process. They failed to submit evidence that their lawyer did not receive the decision. Additionally, the parties had agreed to submit the case for decision after filing position papers, so there was an opportunity to be heard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    102 views1 page

    Var Orient Shipping Vs Achaso

    Uploaded by

    prime
    The petitioners filed a complaint against crew members for allegedly violating their employment contracts. After the parties agreed to submit position papers, only the private respondents submitted papers. The POEA administrator then dismissed the case. Petitioners claimed they did not receive the decision and filed a motion to recall the writ of execution. The administrator denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not denied due process. They failed to submit evidence that their lawyer did not receive the decision. Additionally, the parties had agreed to submit the case for decision after filing position papers, so there was an opportunity to be heard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC. and COMNINOS BROS.

    , petitioners,
    vs.
    TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his capacity as Administrator of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA),
    EDGAR T. BUNYOG, VEDASTO NAVARRO, EUGENIO CAPALAD, RAUL T IS, ANTONIO TANIOAN, CELESTINO CASON,
    DANILO MANELA & ROBERTO GENESIS, respondents.

    Viray, Aseron & Associates for petitioners.

    The Solicitor General for public respondent.

    Fact: The petitioners filed a complaint with the Workers’ Assistance and Adjudication Office, Philippine Overseas
    Employment Administration (POEA) against the private respondents, crew members of the MPV “Silver Reefer,” for
    having allegedly violated their Contracts of Employment with the petitioners which supposedly resulted in damages
    arising from the interdiction of the vessel by the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) at Kiel Canal,
    Germany, in March 1986. After joinder of the issues, the case was heard on March 4, 1987 where the parties agreed to
    submit their respective position papers and thereafter the case would be submitted for decision. Only the private
    respondents submitted a position paper. On the basis of the pleadings and memoranda the public respondent rendered
    a decision on September 9,1987 the dispositive part of which Dismiss of the instant case.A copy of the decision was sent
    by registered mail and delivered by the postman to the petitioners’ counsel through the receptionist but According to
    Attorney Figura, he did not receive the envelope containing the decision. Petitioners allegedly learned about the
    decision only when the writ of execution was served on them by NLRC Deputy Sheriff . petitioners, through new counsel,
    filed an ‘urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution’ on the ground that the decision had not been received by the
    petitioners, hence, it was not yet final and executory. The public respondent denied the motion. In due time, this
    petition was filed wherein the petitioners allege that:adrianantazo.wordpress.com

    Issue: Whether the Petitioner were denied due process of law because the respondent POEA Administrator resolved the
    case without any formal hearing?

    Held: No, The petitioners’ allegation that the issuance of the writ of execution was premature because the decision had
    not been received by their counsel is unconvincing. Petitioners failed to submit an affidavit of the receptionist Marlyn
    Aquino explaining what she did with the decision which she received for Atty. Figura. Under the circumstances, the
    respondent Administrator’s ruling that the decision had been properly served on petitioners’ counsel and that it is now
    final and unappealable, should be sustained. Equally unmeritorious is the petitioners ‘allegation that they were denied
    due process because the decision was rendered without a formal hearing. The essence of due process is simply an
    opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an
    opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The fact is that at the hearing of the case on
    March 4,1987, it was agreed by the parties that they would file their respective memoranda and thereafter consider the
    case submitted for decision. This procedure is authorized by law to expedite the settlement of labor disputes. However,
    only the private respondents submitted memoranda. The petitioners did not. On June 10, 1987, the respondents filed a
    motion to resolve. The petitioners’ counsel did not oppose either the “Motion to Resolve” or the respondents “Motion
    for Execution of Decision” dated October 19, 1987, both of which were furnished them through counsel. If it were true,
    as they now contend, that they had been denied due process in the form of a formal hearing, they should have opposed
    both motions.

    You might also like