Arellano vs NLRC : 127896 : Augusst 21, 1997 : J. Padilla : First Division http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127896.htm This is to report to you that O.S. Arellano Adriano A. on 21-8-93, 0830 HRS refused to clean scavenge space with the mechanic stating that it is the mechanic (sic) job and not his. On further showing him the company form regarding the inter-departamental flexibility system, his final reply is that he is an O.S. and not a G.P., and would work on deck as an O.S. and does not like to work in the engine room especially cleaning the scavenge space. SGD. O.S. ARELLANO, ADRIANO A. SGD. BOSUN SIGLOS Frame R. SGD. 2/E CHAN YIN HON c/o YAP CHEE KIONG After evaluating the report, the master wrote an undated handwritten reply[2] below which read: Please arrange the mentioned O.S. Repatriation at this calling FE. Sgd. Master The records do not show if petitioner was informed of the masters order for his repatriation. On 9 September 1993, while the vessel was anchored in Hongkong, he was discharged from the the M/V OOCL and repatriated to the Philippines the following day. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal against private respondents before the POEA. In his affidavit, he averred that he was not informed of the IDF system aboard the M/V OOCL and that he was denied due process of law by the officers of the M/V OOCL. He maintained that neither was he informed of the reason for his repatriation nor given an opportunity to explain his side on the 8 August 1993 incident. Upon the other hand, private respondents maintained that petitioners signature on the incident report to the master of the M/V OOCL sufficiently informed him that he was being charged with gross insubordination because of his refusal to obey lawful orders from his officers. The POEA ruled that petitioner had a right to protest the job being assigned to him which did not fall within his job description. He had a right not to follow the ships IDF system because this agreement had no approval of the POEA. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner can lawfully be ordered to work in the engine room, this single incident of insubordination cannot constitute sufficient basis for termination.[3] The POEA thus held private respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and awarded petitioner his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract, including his leave pay and salary for 1-10 September 1993 which was not paid prior to his dismissal, and 10% attorneys fees. On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the POEA decision. The NLRC held that petitioner made a false statement under oath when he averred that he was never informed of the reason for his repatriation, when the evidence showed otherwise, i.e., that he personally signed the incident report to the captain which stated his refusal to perform the job being assigned to him. Moreover, petitioners signature on the vessels IDFS form contradicted his assertion that he was never informed of its existence as explained to him by private respondents. In the NLRCs view, the ships IDFS policy contract is valid even without POEA approval because its provisions are not contrary to law, morals and public policy. Petitioner gave his assent thereto, which bound him to obey all its provisions. On 3 March 1997, we required respondents to file their comment on the petition. Private respondents filed their comment on 4 April 1997[4] while the Solicitor General filed his comment in behalf of the NLRC on 20 May 1997.[5] 2 of 4 1/24/2016 11:23 PM

Select target paragraph3