STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. and STOLT...
2 of 6
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/105396.htm
Captain Erkiaga interpreted private respondents failure to work to be an act of disobedience and
immediately ordered him, along with some other seamen, to report on deck within five minutes to
clean up the deck cargo tank. Despite his illness, private respondent tried to reach the deck on
time but he was unable to make it. The incident was entered in the log book; viz:
0830 Fitter Eduardo Monsale and Alfonso Garino have refused to work in the tank cleaning
when ordered to do so.
0845 They are informed of the above entry in the log book.
0845 They comment that they are not refusing to go to work but only to work in the tanks.
They are informed their contract is terminated as to today, for repeated disobedience
to lawful orders of their superiors.
[4]
On 07 February 1989, private respondent was repatriated to the Philippines. Upon arrival in
Manila two days later, private respondent went to the manning agents physician, Dr. Fidel Chua;
who found him to be suffering from bronchitis. On 10 February 1989, he made a written report on
the circumstances of his case, furnishing with a copy thereof the manning agents Capt.
Maximiano Hernandez. The latter confirmed the termination of private respondents employment.
On 13 March 1989, private respondent went to the bank to get his salary for the months of
January and February 1989. He learned that his salary allotments were not remitted by
petitioners. On 08 March 1989, private respondent filed with the POEA a complaint for illegal
dismissal and contract substitution.
The POEA, ruling in favor of private respondent, held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents Stolt
Nielsen Marine Services Philippines and Stolt Nielsen, Inc. to pay jointly and severally
complainant's Eduardo S. Monsale the following:
1. FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN US DOLLARS (US$5,616.00) or its
equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing complainants
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract;
"2. FOUR HUNDRED NINETY NINE AND 20/100 US DOLLARS (US$499.20) or its
equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing complainants
unremitted salary for the month of January 1989; and
3 TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY US DOLLARS (US$2,250.00) or its equivalent
in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing complainants fixed overtime
pay.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
[5]
On appeal, the NLRC, in its resolution of 27 January 1992, affirmed the POEA decision and
ruled that the POEA had not gravely abused its discretion. The NLRC added that petitioners
were afforded ample opportunity to present their side in the proceedings before the POEA.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.
In the petition for certiorari, instant, several submissions have been made but, as so
encapsulized by the Solicitor General, the controversy really revolves around the following
issues:
I WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.
II WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
1/20/2016 2:19 PM