SERRANO vs. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC.

and MARLOW NAVIGATION RULING:

CO., INC. Equality is one ideal which cries out for bold attention and action in the
G. R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009 Constitution. The Preamble proclaims "equality" as an ideal precisely in protest
against crushing inequities in Philippine society. To address these inequities,
FACTS: our Constitution, has adopted the policy of social justice to guarantee social
Serrano signed a Contract of Employment for Chief Officer, with basic monthly and economic rights to marginalized groups of society, including labor. Under
salary of US$1,400, with Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the
Co., Ltd for 12 months. interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less
privilege in life should have more in law.
However on the date of his departure, March 19, 1998, petitioner was
constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of While these provisions on social justice are described as nonself-executing and
Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000, upon the assurance and does not directly bestow on the working class any actual enforceable rights, the
representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end provisions urges not only on the legislative and executive branches but also on
of April 1998. the judiciary to translate this pledge into a living reality.

Respondents did not deliver on their promise. Hence, petitioner refused to stay The law guarantees equal protection to all – that no person shall be deprived of
on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998. life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be
Petitioner had only served 2 months and 7 days of his contract, leaving an denied the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days.
Section 18,63 Article II and Section 3,64 Article XIII accord all members of the
Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against respondents for labor sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of
constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims, for the unexpired their rights and welfare. To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the
portion of his contract plus adjustments to chief mate’s salary, totaling foregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity: all
US$26,442.73. monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of similar category,
while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none
The last clause in paragraph 10 of RA 8042 states that “In case of termination of should be denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.
or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his
placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his Laws are presumed constitutional until they are proclaimed by the court to be
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) otherwise. Generally, the petitioner has the burden of proof in proving that a
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.” statute is unconstitutional. But if the challenge to the statute is premised on
the denial of a fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against
Relying on this, the LA based his computation on the salary period of 3 months persons favored by the Constitution with special protection, it is incumbent
only rather than the entire unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days of the upon the government to prove that there is a compelling state interest for the
petitioner’s employment contract. Thus, the LA awarded petitioner monetary denial of such right.
benefits in the sum $8,770.00.
Skippers United vs. Doza et al GR 175558, Feb. 8, 2012
ISSUE(S):
What is the source of authority of the state to protect seafarers? Fact:
Why is there a need to protect workers and eliminate discrimination? Petitioner deployed, respondents to work on board the vessel MV Wisdom
Who bears the burden of evidence in proving some labor standards claims? Star. Respondents claimed that Skippers failed to remit their respective
allotments for almost five months, to date, however, Skippers only failed to
remit the home allotment for the month of December 1998. Respondents were terminated their contracts, then Respondents should have submitted their
unceremoniously discharged from MV Wisdom Stars and immediately written resignations.
repatriated. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Respondents filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter who dismissed herein action for lack of MCBURNIE vs. GANZON
merit. Respondents’ filed an appeal to the NLRC who dismissed the appeal for G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117, October 17, 2013
lack of merit and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The respondents
appealed to the CA and granted the respondents petition and reversed the FACTS:
decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, Hence this petition. McBurnie, an Australian nation, signed a 5-year employment agreement with
the company EGI as Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the
Issue: management of the company’s hotels and resorts within the Philippines. He
Whether the Dismissal of the respondents is valid and the master’s telex performed work for the company until sometime in November 1999, when he
message showing that the respondents voluntarily requested to be repatriated figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia while
should be given due credence. recuperating from his injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by
respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed because their
Held: intended project would no longer push through.
No, for a worker’s dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both The respondents opposed the complaint, contending that their agreement with
procedural and substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal McBurnie was to jointly invest in and establish a company for the management
constitutes procedural due process, while the legality of the act of dismissal of hotels. They did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship,
constitutes substantive due process. Procedural due process in dismissal cases and the execution of the employment contract that was being invoked by
consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. McBurnie was solely for the purpose of allowing McBurnie to obtain an alien
work permit in the Philippines. At the time McBurnie left for Australia for his
The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the medical treatment, he had not yet obtained a work permit.
termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises the
employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; ISSUE:
and (2) the second notice informs the employee of the employer’s decision to Whether or not petitioner, who is an alien, is an employee of respondent
dismiss him. Before the issuance of the second notice, the requirement of a company and was therefore illegally dismissed
hearing must be complied with by giving the worker an opportunity to be
heard. RULING:
Considering that McBurnie, an Australian, alleged illegal dismissal and sought
It is not necessary that an actual hearing be conducted. Substantive due to claim under our labor laws, it was necessary for him to establish, first and
process, on the other hand, requires that dismissal by the employer be made foremost, that he was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment
under a just or authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code. In within our jurisdiction. A requirement for foreigners who intend to work within
this case, there was no written notice furnished to Respondents regarding the the country is an employment permit, as provided under Article 40, Title II of
cause of their dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written notice (telex) to the Labor Code. In WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. Galera, the Court
Skippers, the local manning agency, claiming that Respondents were held that a foreign national’s failure to seek an employment permit prior to
repatriated because the latter voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts. This employment poses a serious problem in seeking relief from the Court for one
telex was given credibility and weight by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in deciding cannot come to court with unclean hands. To grant the alien’s prayer is to
that there was pre-termination of the employment contract “akin to sanction the violation of the Philippine labor laws requiring aliens to secure
resignation” and no illegal dismissal. However, as correctly ruled by the CA, the work permits before their employment. Clearly, this circumstance on the
telex message is “a biased and self-serving document that does not satisfy the failure of McBurnie to obtain an employment permit, by itself, necessitates the
requirement of substantial evidence.” If, indeed, Respondents voluntarily pre- dismissal of his labor complaint. Furthermore, McBurnie failed to present other
competent evidence to prove his claim of an employer-employee relationship.
Given the parties’ conflicting claims on their true intention in executing the HELD:
agreement, it was necessary to resort to the established criteria for the The Court ruled in the affirmative.
determination of an employer-employee relationship, namely: (1) the selection A lawyer shall account for the money or property collected or received for or
and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of from his client as laid down by Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR. A
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. The rule of lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on the claimant to establish or client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated it for his own use
substantiate the claim by the requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever claims in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.
entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right
thereto. McBurnie even failed to show through any document such as pays lips In the case, Torres misappropriated the checks issued to his clients by
or vouchers that his salaries during the time that he allegedly worked for the withholding the checks from his clients and depositing them to an unauthorized
respondents were paid by the company. In the absence of an employer- bank without their consent. Such act constitutes dishonesty, abuse of trust and
employee relationship between McBurnie and the respondents, McBurnie confidence, and betrayal of client’s interests which he is duty-bound to protect.
could not successfully claim that he was dismissed, much less illegally His misconduct also made him fall below the moral bar and has tainted the
dismissed, by the latter. Even granting that there was such an employer- integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
employee relationship, the records are barren of any document showing that
its termination was by the respondents’ dismissal of McBurnie. WHEREFORE, respondent Nicolas C. Torres is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law and his name ordered stricken off from the roll of attorneys.
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED VS. NICOLAS C. TORRES
A.C. No. 10438. September 23, 2014 Prudential Shipping….
FACTS:
CF Sharp Crew Management Incorporated (CF Sharp) hired Nicolas C. Torres PART III
(Torres) as its Legal and Claims Manager as its Legal and Claims Manager who PLACEMENT BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR
was tasked, inter alia, to serve as its legal counsel and to oversee the RULE II
administration and management of legal cases and medical-related claims ACCREDITATION OF PRINCIPALS
instituted by seafarers against complainant’s various principals. AND ENROLMENT OF SHIPS BY MANNING AGENCIES
Section 1. Accreditation of Principals and Enrolment of Ships. In the absence of
Among the cases he handled were claims of seafarers Mangi, Sampani, Delgado a Philippine Overseas Labor Office in the principal place of business of the
and Chua which, per request of Torres, were settled through the issuance of foreign principals, employers or vessel owner/operator/manager to verify the
checks by CF Sharp. However, CF Sharp discovered that, except for the check manning documents, accreditation shall be conducted at the POEA. Only duly
issued to Delgado, Torres never gave the checks to Mangi and Chua, only gave licensed manning agencies may file an application for accreditation of principals
partial amount of the check to Sampani and instead, had them deposited at the and enrolment of ships. Accredited principals shall enroll ships through their
International Exchange Bank. agencies subject to the guidelines as may be determined by the Administration.

CF Sharp filed a complaint at the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP Section 2. Documentary Requirements for Accreditation. An agency applying
Board of Governors unanimously adopted and approved the IBP Investigating for accreditation of its principals shall submit the following:
Commissioner’s report and recommendation with modification, increasing the a. Authenticated manning agreement and Special Power of Attorney containing
recommended period of suspension from the practice of law to two (2) years. among others, the responsibilities of both principal and manning agency with
respect to the employment of seafarers.
ISSUE: b. List of ships and their particulars including IMO number;
Whether or not Torres should be held administratively liable for violating the c. Crew complement of the principal and their corresponding wage scales;
Code of Professional Responsibility
d. Valid business license, registration certificate or equivalent document or
proof of existence of business validated or certified by the issuing authority in Section 7. Transfer of Accreditation of Principal and/or Enrolment of Vessel.
the host country; and The accreditation of a principal and/or enrolment of vessel may be transferred
e. Other documents which the Administration may find necessary. to another agency provided such transfer shall not involve diminution of wages
and benefits of the seafarers hired through the previous agency; and provided
Section 3. Authentication of Documents. Authentication of documents of further that the transferee agency shall assume full and complete responsibility
foreign principals shall be undertaken by any of the following: to all contractual obligations of the principals to its workers originally recruited
a. Appropriate official of the Philippine Embassy or Consulate, or the authorized and processed by the former agency. Prior to the transfer of accreditation, the
Philippine foreign representative, in the absence of a Philippine mission; or Administration shall notify the previous agency and principal of such
b. Appropriate official of any of the designated government ministries or offices application for transfer.
of the host country. The manning agreement and special power of attorney
required for accreditation may be signed by the authorized officials of both the Section 8. Transfer of Vessel Due to Sale or Change of Management. In case of
hiring company and its local agent in the presence of any member of the POEA sale of vessel or change of management necessarily involving a change in
Directorate or those officers of the Administration who are authorized to principal, the agency of the new principal automatically assumes full and
administer oath. The Administration shall charge attestation fees as may be complete responsibility over the seafarers originally recruited and deployed by
allowed by the Secretary. the previous agent, if the seafarers opt to sign an employment contract with
the new principal. Otherwise, the agency which originally recruited and
Section 4. Parties to the Agreement. Parties to the manning agreement are the employed the seafarers shall retain full and complete responsibility over the
duly authorized representative of the manning agency and the direct principal contractual obligation of its principal.
of the seafarers to be recruited. Other cases or modes of transfer of accreditation/registration and/or vessel not
covered here in shall be subject to guidelines to be determined by the
Section 5. Multiple Accreditations of Principals. A principal may be accredited Administration.
to a maximum of three (3) manning agencies provided that a uniform wage and
compensation package shall be adopted by the principal for all seafarers Section 9. Action on Application for Transfer of Accreditation of Principal and
employed through the agencies taking into consideration the type of the vessel Enrolment of Ships with Outstanding Obligations. Claims for money or
and its operations. enforcement of obligations arising out of business relations between principals
and their existing manning agents that would involve the transfer of
Section 6. Approval and Validity of Accreditation. The Administration shall issue accreditation of principal and/or enrolment of ships may be conciliated by the
to the agency an accreditation certificate for its principal after the approval of Administration. However, the pendency of the conciliation should not prevent
accreditation request. The accreditation of the principal shall be valid for a the Administration from acting on the request for accreditation and enrolment
period of four (4) years from the date of issuance, unless sooner revoked by the of ship, if public interest so requires.
Administration on the following grounds:
a. Upon mutual agreement of the parties to pre-terminate the agreement; Section 10. Renewal of Accreditation. The Accreditation shall be renewed upon
b. Expiration of the principal’s business license; request by the agency provided that the documents required for initial
c. False documentation or misrepresentation in connection with the application accreditation are still valid.
for accreditation; or
d. Final judgment in a disciplinary action against the foreign principal. Section 11. One-Stop Processing Center. A one-stop processing center shall be
The expiration of the agency’s license shall not cause the automatic expiration established to facilitate the delivery of all governmental activities pertaining to
or cancellation of the accreditation which shall only be suspended until the maritime employment which shall include among others, the electronic linking
renewal of the license. Provisional accreditation may be granted for a period of of data bases of government agencies involved in the issuance of certificates
ninety (90) days for a principal that substantially meets the accreditation and other documents to seafarers.
requirements.
Section 9, EO 857 Dec 12, 1982 the school curriculum as a prerequisite for graduation or for taking a
SECTION 9. Contract workers who fail to comply with the requirements of this government board examination.cralaw
Order shall be suspended or excluded from the list of eligible workers for
overseas employment. In cases of subsequent violations, he shall be SECTION 41. Compulsory apprenticeship. — (a) When grave national
repatriated from the job site at the expense of the employer or at his expense, emergencies, particularly those involving the security of the state, arise or
as the case may be. particular requirements of economic development so demand, the Secretary of
Labor and Employment may recommend to the President of the Philippines the
Rules Implementing the Labor Code compulsory training of apprentices required in a certain trades, occupations,
RULE VI jobs or employment levels where shortage of trained manpower is deemed
Apprenticeship Training and Employment of Special Workers critical;

SECTION 13. Physical fitness. — Total physical fitness need not be required of People v. Goce
an apprentice-applicant unless it is essential to the expeditious and effective Facts:
learning of the occupation. Only physical defects which constitute real On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a
impediments to effective performance as determined by the plant syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the labor
apprenticeship committee may disqualify an applicant. code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly
Agustin in the RTC of Manila, alleging that in or about during the period
SECTION 19. Apprenticeship period. — The period of apprenticeship shall not comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive in the
exceed six (6) months. City of Manila, the accused conspired and represent themselves to have the
(a) Four hundred (400) hours or two (2) months for trades or occupations which capacity to recruit Filipino workers for employment abroad.
normally require a year or more for proficiency; and
(b) Two hundred (200) hours or one (1) month for occupations and jobs which January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused bot none of
require more than three months but less than one year for proficiency. them was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered the case
At least five (5) working days before the actual date of termination, the party archived but issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused.
terminating shall serve a written notice on the other, stating the reason for
such decision and a copy of said notice shall be furnished the Apprenticeship Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado requested
Division concerned. for a copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually Nelly Agustin was
apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's counsel filed a motion to
SECTION 32. Duties of apprenticeship committees. — An apprenticeship revive the case and requested to set a hearing for purpose of due process and
committee at any level shall be responsible for the following duties: for accused to immediately have her day in court. On the arraignment, Agustin
pleaded not guilty and the trial went on with four complainants testified for the
(a) Act as liaison between the apprentice and the employees; prosecution and receipts of the processing fees they paid.
(b) Mediate and/or settle in the first instance differences between the
employer and the apprentices arising out of an apprenticeship agreement; Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters but
(c) Maintain a constant follow-up on the technical progress of the program and denied her participation in the recruitment and denied knowledge of the
of the apprentices in particular; receipts as well.
(d) Recommend to the Apprenticeship Division of the Regional Office
concerned the issuance of certificates of completion to apprentices. On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a
principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence of life
SECTION 40. Apprenticeship without compensation. — The Secretary of Labor imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.
and Employment through the Apprenticeship Division, may authorize the hiring
of apprentices without compensation whose training on the job is required by Issues:
Agustin appealed with the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing the and that based on the coroner’s report, Ariel committed suicide and there was
complainants to the couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal no foul play at all.
recruitment and placement under Article 13 in relation to Article 34 of the
labor code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy and (3) there is no proof that
appellant offered/promised overseas employment to the complainants. ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to death benefits under Sec. 6(6), Part II of
Ruling: the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen
The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment because, the complainants had a previous COURT RULING:
interview with Agustin (as employee of the Goce couple) about fees and papers Finding that the coroner’s report to be incomplete, the Phil Hanse’s evidence to
to submit that may constitute as referral. Agustin collected the payments of the be lean, frail and far from convincing, and that Phil Hanse failed to ascertain the
complainants as well as their passports, training fees, medical tests and other circumstances of Ariel’s death, the Supreme Court reversed the NLRC’s decision
expenses. On the issue of proof, the court held that the receipts exhibited by and ordered the remand of the case to the POEA for computation of death
the claimants are clear enough to prove the payments and transaction made. benefits. It is the employer’s duty to ascertain the circumstances surrounding
its employee’s death while the employee was on the course of his work. Under
Lapid v. NLRC Section 6 (6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino
GR No. 117518, April 29, 1999 Seamen, if the injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seaman was because
of his own doing, no compensation shall be payable. The employer must prove
FACTS: that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is attributable to the seaman, in
Respondent Phil Hans employed petitioner’s son, Ariel, to be a steward on order for the employer to evade any liability for death benefits.
board M/V Cast Muskox in Canada. Ariel left for the said country in September
1990 and was supposed to come home in August 1991 upon the termination of Seagull Ship Management and Transportation Inc. v. NLRC [GR No 123619,
the 1-year period of employment contract. However, his lifeless body was June 8, 2000]
found hanging by the neck from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse in FACTS: Respondent was a radio operator on board a ship; he had a contract for
Quebec, Canada on August 13, 1991. After examining the corpse, the coroner 12 months. He was required to submit himself to a medical examination. Prior
reported that the causes of death was asphyxiation by hanging and, therefore, to this he had a pacemaker inserted but he was declared fit to work. On board
the circumstances of death was following self-destruction. Based on the said the vessel, he had bouts of coughing and he needed open heart surgery. He
report, Phil Hanse informed petitioner that Ariel committed suicide. When the filed for sickness and disability benefits with the POEA and these were awarded
remains arrived in Manila on August 29, 1991, petitioner noticed immediately to him. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Petitioners appealed the decision
that it bore several bruises so petitioner sought the help of the National Bureau under Rule 45 but asked that it be considered under Rule 65. Respondent
of Investigation (NBI) and submitted the cadaver for post mortem examination. claims that the petition should not prosper for failure to exhaust all
administrative remedies. Petitioners also claimed that respondent’s sickness
The NBI reported that the body vore abrasions on the elbow, contusions on the was not sustained during work and should not be compensable.
forehead, hematoma and ligature marks on the neck, all of which are
inconsistent with the suicide earlier reported. Petitioner then filed a claim with ISSUE: Whether or not the sickness is compensable and whether or not
the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) asserting that Ariel was a administrative remedies were exhausted.
victim of foul play abroad in the course of his overseas employment. However,
the POEA Administrator ruled that the pieces of evidence adduced substantially HELD: The Court ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a
proved that suicide was committed just as what the coroner reported. On condition sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for certiorari,
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the assailed decision based on a conclusion that subject to exceptions. Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the
since Ariel’s $2,000.00 remained intact in his wallet when his body was found adverse consequences of one’s omission to file the required motion for
reconsideration.
The Court also ruled that the petitioners’ own physicians certified him as fit for
work. What matters is that work has contributed, even in a small degree. To the
development of the disease. Previous physical condition is unimportant.