De La Cruz vs NLRC : 115527 : August 18, 1997 : J. Padilla : First Div... 3 of 8 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/115527.htm crewmen were baseless, he was not in a position to ignore the request of the immigration officers. Petitioners, who were accompanied by an ITF lawyer, then demanded that they will only resume work on board the ship if the captain will sign an ITF prepared agreement condoning the incident. To prevent any further disruptive action by the petitioners and to avert any further damage to the shipowners and charterers, Captain Takemoto decided to swallow their unreasonable demands to save the situation. Eventually, Captain Takemoto signed the agreement[4] and stationed the Filipino crewmen on the ships deck and in the engine room. The M/V White Castle finally left Long Beach at 1715 hrs. on 13 June 1990. While the M/V White Castle was in transit, Grace Marine and Shipping Corporation received a telex on 14 June 1990 from its foreign principal, SINKAI narrating the Long Beach incident. On the same day, Grace Marine and Shipping Corporation Furnished the POEA a copy of the SINKAI telex and requested the agency to blacklist the fifteen (15) Filipino seamen (petitioners) and to order their suspension due to their grievous offenses which caused not only heavy losses to the shipowners and charterers but also tainted the business name of Sinkai in particular and the reputation of all Filipino seamen in general. On 15 August 1990, Grace Marine filed a formal complaint for disciplinary action against petitioners before the POEA. In upholding the claim of Grace Marine, the POEA administrator held that Respondents were not only illegally terminated but were terminated for valid cause when they abandoned their respective posts on board their vessel in gross violation of their POEA approved contract. This fact is sufficiently and clearly established by the evidence presented by the complainant. Even granting that respondents have valid grievances against the officers or shipowners with respect to compensation or working condition, this office cannot countenance respondents act of simply ignoring their employment contract approved by the POEA which provides a sufficient mechanism for redressing whatever grievances they have thru their grievance machinery. x x x. xxx xxx xxx Respondents act of seeking the intervention of the ITF/CSR without exhausting first the remedies provided under the Grievance Machinery provision of their duly approved POEA contract constitutes a serious breach of such contract for which penalty of dismissal and suspension is in order. We find respondents allegation that they notify [sic] their second officer of their grievances bereft of truth for we find no sufficient evidence substantiating and corroborating this allegation. In this light, it is but just that respondents reimburse complainant of the sum of US$19,114.83 which the latter incurred for their repatriation and replacement. We find respondents allegation of illegal dismissal and counterclaim for salary for the unexpired portion of the contract without merit.[5] On appeal, the NLRC deleted the award of $19,114.83 representing repatriation expenses and 5% attorneys fees for being uncalled for[6] but upheld petitioners dismissal based on a separate factual finding which appears to be in conflict with that of the POEA decision, thus Significantly, the parties, at the inception of the whole controversy were at fault, giving both of them no recourse at law. Indeed, when respondents were allowed to re-embark at Long Beach, California, after allegedly having abandoned their vessel, which however, was truthfully refuted by respondents, a sense of qualm if not mitigation of complainants indiscretion towards the crews grievance, could understandably have been contemplated. Consequently, for the complainant to renege from their agreement thru its vessels master that no adverse repercussion will be meted on respondents act is tantamount to treahery, thereby leaving respondents in 1/24/2016 11:10 PM