THIRD DIVISION
OSM SHIPPING
PHILIPPINES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
138193
March 5, 2003
-versus-
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(THIRD DIVISION)AND FERMIN F.
GUERRERO,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanrobles virtual law library
The Rules of Court do not
require that all supporting papers and documents accompanying a
petition
for certiorari should be duplicate originals or certified true copies.
Furthermore, unilateral decisions to alter the use of a vessel from
overseas
service to coastwise shipping will not affect the validity of an
existing
employment contract validly executed. Workers should not be prejudiced
by actions done solely by employers without the former's consent or
participation. The Case
Before us is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February
11, 1999 and the March 26, 1999 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
(CA)
in CA-GR SP No. 50667. The assailed Resolutions dismissed a Petition
filed
in the CA, challenging an adverse ruling of the National Labor
Relations
Commission (NLRC). The first Resolution disposed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"We resolve to OUTRIGHTLY
DISMISS the petition."[2]
The second Resolution[3]
denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
NLRC Decision disposed in this wise:
"WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in that
respondents
OSM Shipping Phils. Inc. and its principal, Philippine Carrier Shipping
Agency Services Co. are jointly and severally ordered to pay
complainant
the sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE and 65/100 [US
dollars]
(US$11,359.65) or its peso equivalent at the time of payment
representing
complainant's unpaid salaries, accrued fixed overtime pay, allowance,
vacation
leave pay and termination pay."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
This case originated
from a Complaint filed by Fermin F. Guerrero against OSM Shipping
Philippines,
Inc.; and its principal, Philippine Carrier Shipping Agency Services
Co.
The Complaint was for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries,
overtime
pay and vacation pay. The facts are summarized in the NLRC Decision as
follows:
"[Private respondent]
was hired by [Petitioner] OSM for and in behalf of its principal, Phil
Carrier Shipping Agency Services Co. (PC-SLC) to board its vessel M/V
‘[Princess]
Hoa' as a Master Mariner for a contract period of ten (10) months.
Under
the said contract, his basic monthly salary is US$1,070.00,
US$220.00
allowance, US$321.00 fixed overtime, US$89 vacation leave pay per month
for x x x 44 hours f] work per week. He boarded the vessel on July 21,
1994 and complied faithfully with the duties assigned to him.cralaw:red
"[Private respondent]
alleged that from the start of his work with M/V ‘Princess Hoa', he was
not paid any compensation at all and was forced to disembark the vessel
sometime in January 1995 because he cannot even buy his basic personal
necessities. For almost seven (7) months, i.e. from July 1994 to
January
1995, despite the services he rendered, no compensation or remuneration
was ever paid to him. Hence, this case for illegal dismissal,
[non-payment]
of salaries, overtime pay and vacation pay.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"[Petitioner] OSM, for
its part, alleged that on July 26, 1994, Concorde Pacific, an American
company which owns M/V ‘Princess Hoa', then a foreign registered
vessel,
appointed x x x Philippine Carrier Shipping Agency Services Co.
(PC-SASCO)
as ship manager particularly to negotiate, transact and deal with any
third
persons, entities or corporations in the planning of crewing selection
or determination of qualifications of Filipino Seamen. On the same
date,
[Petitioner] OSM entered into a Crew Agreement with x x x PC-SASCO for
the purpose of processing the documents of crew members of M/V
‘Princess
Hoa'. The initial plan of the [s]hip-owner was to use the vessel in the
overseas trade, particularly the East Asian Growth Area. Thereafter,
the
contract of [private respondent] was processed before the POEA on
September
20, 1994.cralaw:red
"OSM alleged further
that the shipowner changed its plans on the use of the vessel. Instead
of using it for overseas trade, it decided to use it in the coastwise
trade,
thus, the crewmembers hired never left the Philippines and were merely
used by the shipowner in the coastwise trade. Considering that the M/V
‘Princess Hoa' was a foreign registered vessel and could not be used in
the coastwise trade, the shipowner converted the vessel to Philippine
registry
on September 28, 1994 by way of bareboat chartering it out to another
entity
named Philippine Carrier Shipping Lines Co. (PCSLC). To do this, the
shipowner
through Conrado V. Tendido had to terminate its management agreement
with
x x x PC-SASCO on September 28, 1994 by a letter of termination dated
September
20, 1994. In the same letter of termination, the ship owner stated that
it has bareboat chartered out the vessel to said [PCSLC] and converted
it into Philippine registry. Consequently, x x x PC-SASCO terminated
its
crew agreement with OSM in a letter dated December 5, 1994. Because of
the bareboat charter of the vessel to PCSLC and its subsequent
conversion
to Philippine registry and use in coastwise trade as well as to the
termination
of the management agreement and crew agency agreement, a termination of
contract ensued whereby PCSLC, the bareboat charterer, became the
disponent
owner/employer of the crew.cralaw:red
As a disponent owner/employer,
PCSLC is now responsible for the payment of complainant's wages. x x x.[5]
Labor Arbiter (LA) Manuel
R. Caday rendered a Decision[6]
in favor of Private Respondent Guerrero. Petitioner and its principal,
Philippine Carrier Shipping Agency Services, Co. (PC-SASCO), were
ordered
to jointly and severally pay Guerrero his unpaid salaries and
allowances,
accrued fixed overtime pay, vacation leave pay and termination pay. The
Decision held that there was a constructive dismissal of private
respondent,
since he had not been paid his salary for seven months. It also
dismissed
petitioner's contention that there was a novation of the employment
contract.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On appeal, the NLRC
(Third Division) affirmed the LA's Decision, with a modification as to
the amount of liability. On January 28, 1999, petitioner filed with the
CA a Petition[7]
to set aside the NLRC judgment. The petition was dismissed, because
petitioner
had allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of Section 3 of
Rule
46 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, petitioner had attached to its
Petition, not a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the LA's
Decision, but a mere machine copy thereof. Further, it had not
indicated
the actual address of Private Respondent Fermin F. Guerrero.[8]
Hence, this Petition.[9]
The Issues
In its Memorandum, petitioner
raises the following issues for the Court's consideration:
"1. Did not the Court
of Appeals err in interpreting and applying the 1997 Rules when it
required
as attachment to the Petition for Certiorari the duplicate original of
another Decision which is not-the subject of the said Petition?
"2. Did not the Court
of Appeals err in interpreting and applying the 1997 Rules when it
disregarded
the subsequent compliance made by petitioner?
"3. Did not the Court
of Appeals err in interpreting and applying the 1997 Rules when it did
not consider the Notice to private respondent Guerrero through his
counsel
as Notice to Guerrero himself?"[10]
The foregoing issues
all refer to the question of whether, procedurally, petitioner has
complied
with Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Additionally and in
the
interest of speedy justice, this Court will also resolve the
substantive
issue brought before the CA: did the NLRC commit grave abuse of
discretion
in ruling in favor of private respondent?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
While petitioner is
procedurally correct, the case should nonetheless be decided on the
merits
in favor of private respondent.cralaw:red
Procedural Issue: Compliance with
the Rules of Court
Petitioner puts at issue
the proper interpretation of Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.[11]
Specifically, was petitioner required to attach a certified true copy
of
the LA's Decision to its Petition for Certiorari challenging the NLRC
judgment?
Section 3 of Rule 46
does not require that all supporting papers and documents accompanying
a petition be duplicate originals or certified true copies. Even under
Rule 65 on certiorari and prohibition, petitions need to be accompanied
only by duplicate originals or certified true copies of the questioned
judgment, order or resolution. Other relevant documents and pleadings
attached
to it may be mere machine copies thereof.[12]
Numerous decisions issued by this Court emphasize that in appeals under
Rule 45 and in original civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 in
relation
to Rules 46 and 56, what is required to be certified is the copy of the
questioned judgment, final order or resolution.[13]
Since the LA's Decision was not the questioned ruling, it did not have
to be certified. What had to be certified was the NLRC Decision. And
indeed
it was.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the alleged missing
address of private respondent, the indication by petitioner that
Guerrero
could be served with process care of his counsel was substantial
compliance
with the Rules.cralaw:red
This Court has held
that the sending of pleadings to a party is not required, provided that
the party is represented by counsel.[14]
This rule is founded on considerations of fair play, inasmuch as an
attorney
of record is engaged precisely because a party does not feel competent
to deal with the intricacies of law and procedure.[15]
Both jurisprudence[16]
and the basics of procedure[17]
provide that when a party has appeared through counsel, service is to
be
made upon the latter, unless the court specifically orders that it be
upon
the party.cralaw:red
We also note that from
the inception of the case at the LA's office, all pleadings addressed
to
private respondent had always been sent to his counsel, Atty. Danilo G.
Macalino. Note that private respondent, who was employed as a seaman,
was
often out of his home. The service of pleadings and other court
processes
upon him personally would have been futile, as he would not have been
around
to receive them.cralaw:red
This Court has repeatedly
held that while courts should meticulously observe the Rules, they
should
not be overly strict about procedural lapses that do not impair the
proper
administration of justice.[18]
Rather, procedural rules should be liberally construed to secure the
just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[19]
Substantive Issue: Liability of Petitioner
for Unpaid Salaries
It is worthwhile to
note that what is involved in this case is the recovery of unpaid
salaries
and other monetary benefits. The Court is mindful of the plight of
private
respondent and, indeed, of workers in general who are seeking to
recover
wages that are being unlawfully withheld from them. Such recovery
should
not be needlessly delayed at the expense of their survival. This case
is
now on its ninth year since its inception at the LA's office. Its
remand
to the CA will only unduly delay its disposition. In the interest of
substantial
justice,[20]
this Court will decide the case on the merits based upon the records of
the case, particularly those relating to the OSM Shipping Philippines'
Petition before the CA.cralaw:red
On behalf of its principal,
PC-SASCO, petitioner does not deny hiring Private Respondent Guerrero
as
master mariner. However, it argues that since he was not deployed
overseas,
his employment contract became ineffective, because its object was
allegedly
absent. Petitioner contends that using the vessel in coastwise trade
and
subsequently chartering it to another principal had the effect of
novating
the employment contract. We are not persuaded.cralaw:red
As approved by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), petitioner was the legitimate
manning
agent of PC-SASCO.[21]
As such, it was allowed to select, recruit, hire and deploy seamen on
board
the vessel M/V Princess Hoa, which was managed by its principal,
PC-SASCO.[22]
It was in this capacity that petitioner hired private respondent as
master
mariner. They then executed and agreed upon an employment contract.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An employment contract,
like any other contract, is perfected at the moment (1) the parties
come
to agree upon its terms; and (2) concur in the essential elements
thereof:
(a) consent of the contracting parties, (b) object certain which is the
subject matter of the contract and (c) cause of the obligation.[23]
Based on the perfected contract, Private Respondent Guerrero complied
with
his obligations thereunder and rendered his services on board the
vessel.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the contract had an object, which
was the rendition of service by private respondent on board the vessel.
The non-deployment of the ship overseas did not affect the validity of
the perfected employment contract. After all, the decision to use the
vessel
for coastwise shipping was made by petitioner only and did not bear the
written conformity of private respondent. A contract cannot be novated
by the will of only one party.[24]
The claim of petitioner that it processed the contract of private
respondent
with the POEA only after he had started working is also without merit.
Petitioner cannot use its own misfeasance to defeat his claim.cralaw:red
Petitioner, as manning
agent, is jointly and severally liable with its principal,[25]
PC-SASCO, for private respondent's claim. This conclusion is in
accordance
with Section 1 of Rule II of the POEA Rules and Regulations.[26]
Joint and solidary liability is meant to assure aggrieved workers of
immediate
and sufficient payment of what is due them.[27]
The fact that petitioner and its principal have already terminated
their
agency agreement does not relieve the former of its liability. The
reason
for this ruling was given by this Court in Catan National Labor
Relations
Commission,[28]
which we reproduce in part as follows:
"This must be so, because
the obligations covenanted in the [manning] agreement between the local
agent and its foreign principal are not coterminus with the term of
such
agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the
agreement,
the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees
under
the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends up to and until
the
expiration of the, employment contracts of the employees recruited and
employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this
will
render nugatory the very purpose for which the law governing the
employment
of workers for foreign jobs abroad was enacted."[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Resolutions are hereby SET ASIDE, and the September 10, 1998 NLRC
Decision
REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 14-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 89. Written by Justice Renato C. Dacudao, member of the Special
Tenth Division; concurred in by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez
(now
SC justice and Division chairman) and Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (acting
member).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 104. Written by Justice Renato C. Dacudao, member of the former
Special Tenth Division; concurred in by Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and
Eloy R. Bello Jr., members.
[4]
NLRC Decision, p. 17; rollo, Vol. I, p. 78. Written by Commissioner
Tito
F. Genilo and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier
and Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo.
[5]
Id., pp. 3-6 and 65-68.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, vol. I, pp. 53-61.
[7]
Id., pp. 27-35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Assailed CA Resolution, p. 1; rollo, Vol. I, p. 88.
[9]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on July 2, 2002, upon the
Court's
receipt of private respondent's Reply to petitioner's Memorandum, and
signed
by Atty. Danilo G. Macalino of D.G. Macalino & Associates.
Public
respondent's Memorandum, filed on April 16, 2001, was signed by
Assistant
Solicitor General Carlos N. Ortega, Assistant Solicitor General Roman
G.
del Rosario and Associate Solicitor Beatrice A. Caunan-Medina of the
Office
of the Solicitor General. Petitioner's Memorandum, filed on March
14, 2001, was signed by Atty. Victor B. Roque.
[10]
Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 4; rollo, Vol. II, p. 79. Original in
upper case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
"SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition, effect of non-compliance with
requirements. - The petition shall contain the full names and actual
addresses
of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the
matters
involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied
upon
for the relief prayed for.
"In
actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the
material
dates showing when notice of judgment or final order or resolution
subject
thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration,
if
any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It
shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof
of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended
for
the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied
by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment,
order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of
the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or
pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the
proper
clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the
proper
officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his
duly
authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the
petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all
documents
attached to the original.
"The
petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn
certification
that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the
same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action
or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should
thereafter
learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly
inform
the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five
(5)
days therefrom.chan
robles virtual law
"The
petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to
the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the
time
of the filing of the petition.
"The
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition."chan
[12]
§1 and §2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Cadayona v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 619, February 3, 2000, citing
the
following cases: Martinet v. Magallanes, GR No. 133766, January 13,
1999;
Borja v. Judge Hontanosas Jr., GR No. 134748, January 13, 1999;
Regalado
et al. v. NLRC, GR No. 134671, January 13, 1999; G and M [Phils.], Inc.
v. NLRC, GR No. 133836, January 13, 1999; Dimalanta v. People, GR No.
134798,
November 9, 1998.
[14]
Zoleta v. Drilon, 166 SCRA 548, October 18, 1988.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., p. 554, citing JM Javier Logging Corporation v. Mardo, 24 SCRA
776,
August 27, 1968.
[16]
Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584, December 29, 1999; Galang v.
Court
of Appeals, 199 SCRA 683, July 29, 1991; Salen v. Dinglasan, 198 SCRA
623,
June 28, 1991.
[17]
§2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 495, February 23, 1999;
Uy Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 275, November 9, 1990; Rinconada
Telephone
Company, Inc. v. Buenviaje, 184 SCRA 701, April 27, 1990; Seriña
v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 421, February 21, 1989.
[19]
§6, Rule I of the 1997 Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Basco v. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 768, February 29, 2000; Beutifont
Inc.,
v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 481, January 29, 1988; Lianga Bqy Logging
Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 357, January 28, 1988;
Francisco
v. City of Davao, 12 SCRA 628, December 24, 1964; Magno-Adamos v.
Bagasao,
162 SCRA 747, June 28, 1988.
[21]
NLRC Decision, p. 7; rollo, Vol. I, p. 69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Crew Agency Agreement, pp. 1-3; rollo, pp. 42-44.
[23]
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 523,
December
1, 1995; Ang Yu Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 602, December 2,
1994.
[24]
Security Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Cuenca, 341 SCRA 781, October
3, 2000; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 239, July 27, 1998; Tiu
Siuco
v. Habana, 45 Phil. 707, February 21, 1924.
[25]
Philippine Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation v. NLRC, 264 SCRA
418,
November 19, 1996; Chavez v. Bonto-Perez, 242 SCRA 73, March 1, 1995;
Teknika
Skills and Trade Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 212 SCRA 132, August 4, 1992.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
"SEC. 1. Requirements for Issuance of License. Every applicant for
license
to operate a private employment agency or manning agency shall submit a
written application together with the following requirements:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx
xxx xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
f.
A verified undertaking stating that the applicant:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx
xxx xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3)
Shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all
claims
and liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation
of
the contract; including but not limited to payment of wages, health and
disability compensation and reparation[.]
[27]
PI Manpower Placements, Inc. v. NLRC (Second Division), 276 SCRA 451,
July
31, 1997.
[28]
160 SCRA 691, April 15, 1988.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id., p. 695, citing NLRC Resolution in the same case, per Cortes, J. |