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