FIRST
DIVISION
ADRIANO
A. ARELLANO, JR.,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 127896
August 21, 1997
-versus-
THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ALL OCEANS MARITIME AGENCY, ORIENT
OVERSEAS
CONTAINER LINE, LIMITED and COMMONWEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
This is a
petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court which seeks to annul the decision of the
National
Labor Relations Commission dated 27 August 1996 in NLRC Case No.
009801-95
entitled "Adriano A. Arellano, Jr. v. All Oceans Maritime Agency, et.
al."
The NLRC decision
reversed and set aside the decision
dated 17 May 1995 of POEA Administrator Felicisimo Joson holding
private
respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and solidarily liable to pay
petitioner's
salary for the unexpired portion of his contract. The NLRC held that
there
was substantial evidence which showed that there was just cause in
petitioner's
repatriation and that private respondents observed due process of law
in
terminating petitioner's employment.cralaw:red
The facts are not
in dispute.cralaw:red
Petitioner was
hired by private respondent All
Oceans Maritime Agency to work as an ordinary seaman [O.S.] aboard the
vessel M/V OOCL Envoy for twelve (12) months. He boarded the vessel on
5 August 1993. Over a month later, on 10 September 1993, he was
repatriated
to the Philippines for his alleged refusal to perform his duties as an
ordinary seaman under the terms and conditions of his employment
contract.cralaw:red
It appears that
on 21 August 1993, while the M/V
OOCL Envoy was sailing off the coast of Seattle, Washington, one of the
vessel's officers ordered petitioner to help the mechanic in cleaning
the
scavenge space in the engine room of the vessel. Petitioner refused to
obey said order, arguing that it was not his job to clean the scavenge
space. The officer reminded him about the inter-departmental
flexibility
system [IDFS] being enforced in the vessel, but petitioner remained
defiant.
On the same day, the officer reported petitioner's insubordination to
the
master of the M/V OOCL Envoy.cralaw:red
The report[1]
reads as follows:
cc: Chief
Engineer Place: Seattle
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL FLEXIBILITY SYSTEM
(I.D.F.)
This is to report to you that O.S.
Arellano
Adriano
A. on 21-8-93, 0830 HRS. refused to clean scavenge space with the
mechanic
stating that it is the mechanic (sic) job and not his.
On further showing him the company form
regarding
the above inter-departmental flexibility system, his final reply is
that
he is an O.S. and not a G.P., and would work on deck as an O.S. and
does
not like to work in the engine room especially cleaning the scavenge
space
SGD. O.S ARELLANO, ADRIANO A. SGD. BOSUN
SIGLOS
SGD. 2/E CHAN YIN HON c/o YAP CHEE KIONG
After
evaluating the report, the master wrote an
undated handwritten reply[2]
below the report which read:
Please arrange the mentioned O.S.
Repatriation
at this calling FE.
The records do
not show if petitioner was informed
of the master's order for his repatriation. On 9 September 1993, while
the vessel was anchored in Hongkong, he was discharged from the M/V
OOCL
and repatriated to the Philippines the following day.
Aggrieved,
petitioner filed a case for illegal
dismissal against private respondents before the POEA. In his
affidavit,
he averred that he was not informed of the IDF system aboard the M/V
OOCL
and that he was denied due process of law by the officers of the M/V
OOCL.
He maintained that neither was he informed of the reason for his
repatriation
nor given an opportunity to explain his side on the 8 August 1993
incident.
Upon the other hand, private respondents maintained that petitioner's
signature
on the incident report to the master of the M/V OOCL sufficiently
informed
him that he was being charged with gross insubordination because of his
refusal to obey lawful orders from his officers.cralaw:red
The POEA ruled
that petitioner had a right to
protest the job being assigned to him which did not fall within his job
description. He had a right not to follow the ship's IDF system because
this agreement had no approval of the POEA. Even assuming arguendo that
petitioner can lawfully be ordered to work in the engine room, this
single
incident of insubordination cannot constitute sufficient basis for
termination.[3]
The POEA thus held private respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and
awarded petitioner his salary for the unexpired portion of his
contract,
including his leave pay and salary for 1-10 September 1993 which was
not
paid prior to his dismissal, and 10% attorney's fees.cralaw:red
On appeal, the
NLRC reversed and set aside the
POEA decision. The NLRC held that petitioner made a false statement
under
oath when he averred that he was never informed of the reason for his
repatriation,
when the evidence showed otherwise, i.e., that he personally
signed
the incident report to the captain which stated his refusal to perform
the job being assigned to him. Moreover, petitioner's signature on the
vessel's IDFS form contradicted his assertion that he was never
informed
of its existence as explained to him by private respondents. In the
NLRC's
view, the ship's IDFS policy contract is valid even without POEA
approval
because its provisions are not contrary to law, morals and public
policy.
Petitioner gave his assent thereto, which bound him to obey all its
provisions.cralaw:red
On 3 March 1997,
we required respondents to file
their comment on the petition. Private respondents filed their comment
on 4 April 1997[4]
while the Solicitor General filed his comment in behalf of the NLRC on
20 May 1997.[5]
Private
respondent All Oceans maintains that petitioner's
signature on the incident report to the captain served as sufficient
notice
that he was being charged with gross insubordination. According to said
private respondent, petitioner has a past record of failing to finish
his
contract for reasons ranging from serious family problems, medical
reasons,
and by failing to board his ship in Singapore. All these incidents show
a pattern of petitioner's propensity not to follow orders from his
superiors.cralaw:red
In his comment,
the Solicitor General agrees with
the NLRC that the affidavit executed by petitioner to support his claim
of illegal dismissal should be entirely discredited under the doctrine
of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Solicitor General
contends
that petitioner did not question the authenticity and genuineness of
his
signatures on the IDF system form and on the incident report to the
captain
which palpably contradicts all the allegations in his affidavit.cralaw:red
The Solicitor
General further argues in favor
of the validity of private respondents' IDF system, citing Book V Rule
2 Sections 2 and 3 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas
Employment
which state that the Standard Employment Contract for seamen only
provides
the minimum terms and conditions of employment and does not obviate the
fixing of additional terms and conditions that may be deemed reasonable
under the circumstances. However, the Solicitor General observes that
private
respondents did not fully observe the twin requirements of procedural
due
process as there is no evidence that petitioner received a subsequent
notice
of judgment after due hearing, which sufficiently informed him of the
employer's
decision to dismiss him. Pursuant to the WenPhil doctrine, the
Solicitor
General recommends that private respondents should be made to pay the
amount
of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as indemnity to petitioner.cralaw:red
The petition is
bereft of merit.cralaw:red
There is no
dispute that petitioner openly defied
the lawful orders of his superiors when he refused to help the vessel's
mechanic in cleaning the scavenge space located in the vessel's engine
room. Whatever reasons he had at that time to justify his obstinacy
cannot
be deduced from the evidence presented by both parties. Petitioner had
barely been aboard the vessel for three (3) weeks, and yet he was
determined
to challenge his immediate superiors when he affixed his signature on
the
incident report to the ship captain to protest the job being assigned
to
him. In his mind, he would only work on deck and not in the vessel's
engine
room.cralaw:red
We hold that the
NLRC did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion in overturning the decision of the POEA. However,
the
Court does not see the applicability of the falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus
doctrine in resolving a simple issue of whether or not there was just
cause
for private respondents to terminate petitioner's employment. While
petitioner's
affidavit[6]
took the place of his direct testimony in the proceedings before the
POEA,
we cannot fully ascertain from this single piece of evidence if it was
given with an intention to deceive when petitioner claimed that he was
unaware of the vessel's IDF system and that he was repatriated without
due process of law.cralaw:red
The material
provision in the vessel's IDF system
is paragraph 3 which reads:
The working system for all OOCL vessels
is
under
inter-departmental flexibility system [I.D.F.S.]. Therefore, new
members
are implored to do all-around job on board the ship regardless of their
actual position/rank whether he is assigned as deck hand or engine hand.
We have
examined the rest of the documents marked
as Annex "B"[7]
in petitioner's position paper filed before the NLRC and it appears
that
the provisions therein pertain to the rules and regulations to be
observed
aboard the vessel rather than a separate contract aside from the POEA
approved
contract of employment signed by petitioner. The Court, as a rule, will
not interfere with an employer's prerogative to regulate all aspects of
employment which includes among others, work assignments, working
methods,
and place and manner of work. As long as the standards of good faith
and
reasonableness are met, an employer is given free reign on how to run
his
business.
The vessel's IDF
system, where new members are
"implored" to do "an all-around job on board the ship", presumes a
situation
wherein the vessel's officers exercise their discretion to order a
seaman,
whether a deck hand or engine hand, to do a particular job when the
situation
so requires. In petitioner's case, he was ordered to clean the vessel's
scavenge space in the engine room together with the mechanic.cralaw:red
The Court cannot
find anything so technical or
so difficult in cleaning a scavenge space which could otherwise give a
rational basis for petitioner's intransigence. Petitioner is estopped
from
asserting his unawareness of the IDF system because the evidence show
that
he was sufficiently informed beforehand of said policy as attested by
his
signature therein.cralaw:red
However, while
his signature on the incident report
to the captain can be viewed as sufficient notice that he was being
charged
with gross insubordination, we agree with the Solicitor General's
observation
that petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain his side before
he was notified of the captain's decision to have him repatriated to
the
Philippines. The captain's handwritten decision below the incident
report
to arrange petitioner's repatriation violated the procedure in our
labor
laws on termination of employment which must be done in the natural
sequence
of notice of charges, hearing and notice of judgment. While there was
just
cause for petitioner's repatriation, private respondents' actions fell
short of giving petitioner an ample opportunity to explain and defend
himself.
Accordingly, the Court applies the doctrine it laid down in WenPhil
Corporation
v. NLRC, G. R. 80587, February 8, 1989 which imposed a sanction on the
employer who failed to give due process to his erring employee. We thus
held that the sanction would depend on the facts of each case and the
gravity
of the omission.cralaw:red
In the case at
bar, the Court deems it fair to
impose a sanction on private respondents which should be made to pay
the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to petitioner for failure to
fully comply with the requirements of procedural due process before
repatriating
petitioner to the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is hereby
AFFIRMED with modification. Private respondents are hereby ordered,
jointly
and severally, to pay petitioner's salary from 1-10 September 1993 and
the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for failure to observe
fully
there requirements of due process of law in effecting petitioner's
repatriation.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo,
Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
___________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 60.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Citing Fil Pride Shipping v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97068, March 5, 1993.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 73-76.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 85-98.
[6]
Annex "J", Rollo, p. 68.
[7]
Rollo, p. 59.
|