4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
681 Phil. 362
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 165935, February 08, 2012 ]
BRIGHT MARITIME CORPORATION (BMC)/DESIREE P. TENORIO,
PETITIONERS, VS. RICARDO B. FANTONIAL, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 67571, dated October 25, 2004, reversing and setting aside the
Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and reinstating the
Decision of the Labor Arbiter finding that respondent Ricardo B. Fantonial was illegally
dismissed, but the Court of Appeals modified the award of damages.
The facts are as follows:
On January 15, 2000, a Contract of Employment[2] was executed by petitioner Bright
Maritime Corporation (BMC), a manning agent, and its president, petitioner Desiree P.
Tenorio, for and in behalf of their principal, Ranger Marine S.A., and respondent Ricardo
B. Fantonial, which contract was verified and approved by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) on January 17, 2000. The employment contract
provided that respondent shall be employed as boatswain of the foreign vessel M/V AUK
for one year, with a basic monthly salary of US$450, plus an allowance of US$220. The
contract also provided for a 90 hours per month of overtime with pay and a vacation
leave with pay of US$45 per month.
Respondent was made to undergo a medical examination at the Christian Medical
Clinic, which was petitioner's accredited medical clinic. Respondent was issued a
Medical Certificate[3] dated January 17, 2000, which certificate had the phrase "FIT TO
WORK" stamped on its lower and upper portion.
At about 3:30 p.m. of January 17, 2000, respondent, after having undergone the predeparture orientation seminar and being equipped with the necessary requirements and
documents for travel, went to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport upon instruction of
petitioners. Petitioners told respondent that he would be departing on that day, and
that a liaison officer would be delivering his plane ticket to him. At about 4:00 p.m.,
petitioners' liaison officer met respondent at the airport and told him that he could not
leave on that day due to some defects in his medical certificate. The liaison officer
instructed respondent to return to the Christian Medical Clinic.
Respondent went back to the Christian Medical Clinic the next day, and he was told by
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/21705
1/12