De La Cruz vs NLRC : 115527 : August 18, 1997 : J. Padilla : First Div... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/115527.htm Tokyo, Japan. The issue is really whether or not the act of petitioners in seeking CSR (or ITF) intervention, and the alleged manner in which it was carried out, constitute a just cause for terminating their employment under Art. 282 of the Labor Code, and whether or not petitioners were given due process before they were repatriated to the Philippines. The report of Capt. Takemoto clearly stated that petitioners complained about alleged unpaid wages, double bookkeeping and poor working conditions before they boarded a bus provided by local ITF investigators. This circumstances presupposes that the local CSR otr ITF had been sought earlier by the petitioners which explains the presence of the bus on the pier. Needless to sa, some of the petitioners have gone earlier to the CSR or ITF to ask for help even before their disembarkation shortly before 1700 hrs. on 12 June 1990. And in doing so, there is no evidence that they used force, violence, intimidation, or any illegal means in order to bring their alleged plight to the attention of the CSR. In Suzara v. Benipayo, the Court took judicial notice of the worldwide militancy of the ITF in interdicting foreign vessels and in demanding wage increases for third world seamen. Interdiction is nothing more than a refusal of ITF members to render service for the ship, such as to load or unload its cargo, to provision it or to perform such other chores ordinarily incident to the docking of the ship at a certain point.[15] That in most cases, there was even no need for Filipino or other seamen to seek ITF intervention because the ITF acts on its own volition in all ITF controlled ports not out of pure altruism but in protecting the interest of its own members.[16] Thus, when petitioners brought their complaints to the CSR-ITF, the captain cannot be unaware of the possibility of interdiction which might further complicate the vessels delay in schedule. If it were indeed true that petitioners claims were entirely baseless, how could petitioners ITF lawyer even force the ship captain to sign the agreement condoning the incident? Whatever the case, Capt, Takemoto agreed to petitioners demand that no retaliatory action would befall those who sought the CSR-ITFs help. Apparently, the captain brached the agreement when he recommended to the shipowners petitioners repatriation. The shipowners sent a telex to its local manning agent Grace Marine and Shipping Corporation as early as 14 June 1990 which in turn furnished the POEA on the same day with a copy of said telex with a prayer to blacklist petitioners. The precipitate haste in which private respondent resolved to have petitioners blacklisted even before the vessels arrival in Japan on 26 June 1990 not only confirms Capt. Takemotos false assurances, but more importantly, these actions show the complete absence of due process in the manner of petitioners repatriation. There is no evidence on record which would established that petitioners were served written notices stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for their repatriation. There is also no evidence to show that petitioners were given an opportunity to answer the charges against them and hear their defenses. The records are also silent if petitioners were furnished written notices of repatriation. The Court notes that under Article XIII of the General Instructions issued by the shipowners, it is provided that, [I]n case of dismissal, as per AMOSUP request being rather strict, please exercise 2/3 notices to seamen before repatriating such erring crew for settling matters smoothly in Manila. The General Instruction also outlined the procedure to be taken for repatriation of the crew, that is, the master and the 2/0 (second officer, who is a Filipino) shall call a disciplinary meeting and the master shall give a first or second warning depending on the number of times the same mistake is committed, and for the 3rd mistake, the master will recommend the crews replacement.[17] The Court has gone over the list of violations contained in the General Instructions and nowhere is it stated that the act of seeking ITF intervention is a cause for repatriation. Neither can we view petitioners act of going to the CSR or ITF as serious misconduct or gross and 6 of 8 1/24/2016 11:10 PM