4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
5. Upon his return to Manila, he immediately proceeded to the petitioner’s
office where he was transferred employment with another vessel
named MV “Stolt Pride” under the same terms and conditions of the
First Contract;
6. On 23 April 1992, the Second Contract was noted and approved by the
POEA;
7. The POEA, without knowledge that he was not deployed with the
vessel, certified the Second Employment Contract on 18 September
1992.
8. Despite the commencement of the Second Contract on 21 April 1992,
petitioners failed to deploy him with the vessel MV “Stolt Pride”;
9. He made a follow-up with the petitioner but the same refused to
comply with the Second Employment Contract.
10. On 22 December 1994, he demanded for his passport, seaman’s book
and other employment documents. However, he was only allowed to
claim the said documents in exchange of his signing a document;
11. He was constrained to sign the document involuntarily because without
these documents, he could not seek employment from other agencies.
He prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees for his
illegal dismissal and in view of the Petitioners’ bad faith in not complying with the
Second Contract.
The case was transferred to the Labor Arbiter of the DOLE upon the effectivity of the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
The parties were required to submit their respective position papers before the Labor
Arbiter. However, petitioners failed to submit their respective pleadings despite the
opportunity given to them.[5]
On 21 July 2000, Labor Arbiter Vicente R. Layawen rendered a judgment[6] finding that
the respondent was constructively dismissed by the petitioners. The dispositive portion
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring
the respondents guilty of constructively dismissing the complainant by not
honoring the employment contract. Accordingly, respondents are hereby
ordered jointly and solidarily to pay complainant the following:
1. $12,537.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment.[7]
The Labor Arbiter found the first contract entered into by and between the complainant
and the respondents to have been novated by the execution of the second contract. In
other words, respondents cannot be held liable for the first contract but are clearly and
definitely liable for the breach of the second contract.[8] However, he ruled that there
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32800
2/11