Pacific Maritime Services Inc vs Ranay : 111002 : July 21, 1997 : J. ... 1 of 4 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/111002.htm SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 111002. July 21, 1997] PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION and CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., petitioners, vs. NICANOR RANAY, and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. DECISION ROMERO, J.: That a mans job is a property right within the ambit of Constitutional protection has been long recognized and accepted in law; hence, we are circumspect and vigilant whenever a worker comes to this Court complaining of illegal dismissal. In each such case, we require the employer to prove by substantial evidence the facts constituting the ground for dismissal,[1] and that termination has been effected with strict observance of both procedural and substantive due process. It is by these standards that the Court has judged the instant petition. Petitioner Pacific Maritime Services, Inc. (Pacific, for brevity), is a duly licensed manning agency while its co-petitioners, Malayan Insurance Corporation and Crown Ship Management, Inc., are the formers bonding company and principal, respectively. On February 1, 1989, Pacific engaged the services of private respondents Nicanor Ranay and Gerardo Ranay as laundrymen. Their employment contracts, both dated February 1, 1989, and duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), provided for the following uniform compensation package: (1) basic monthly salary of US$300.00; (2) additional fixed overtime pay in the amount of US$150.00; and (3) leave pay equivalent to six days wages. These contracts were supposed to be effective for ten months from the date of hiring. On February 14, 1989, private respondents boarded the vessel M/V Star Princess, where they were assigned to work, and which immediately left the Philippines. After working for only three months and thirteen days, however, private respondents were ordered to disembark. They were subsequently repatriated to the Philippines on May 27, 1989. Because of their dismissal, private respondents filed on August 14, 1989, a complaint against petitioners before the POEA, challenging the legality of their dismissal on the ground that the same was effected without prior notice and without just cause. Consequently, they prayed for recovery of all unpaid salaries, overtime pay and leave pay which had accrued and could have accrued were it not for the pretermination of their contracts. Pacific opposed the complaint, contending that the dismissal of private respondents was validly made. It argued that private respondents employment was terminated due to serious misconduct, insubordination, non-observance of proper hours of work and damage to the laundry of the vessels crew and passengers. To support these allegations, petitioners presented a telefax transmission,[2] its lone evidence, purportedly executed and signed by a certain Armando Villegas. Said document made an account of the incidents which allegedly prompted Pacific to terminate private respondents services, among which were: (1) the assault on the person of Armando Villegas himself by Gerardo Ranay coupled with the latters utterance of the words Putang-ina mo! in the presence of at least four other crew members; (2) Gerardo Ranays failure to report for work for three consecutive days; (3) Nicanor Ranays tardiness in going to his 1/24/2016 9:26 PM

Select target paragraph3