while he was busy washing the alleyway of the crew deck, Zakkas started cursing him
again resulting in the altercation where he sustained a cut on the scalp. On 24 July
1990 he was repatriated to the Philippines.
On 6 March 1991 respondent Sangil filed before the Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency (POEA) a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of wages covering the
unexpired portion of his contract, overtime pay plus attorney's fees. On 20 March 1992
the POEA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on the ground that respondent
Sangil "voluntarily signed off from the vessel."iii[3]
On 14 December 1994 the NLRC on appeal reversed the POEA Decision and ordered
petitioners "to pay Mario Sangil jointly and severally his salary for ten (10) months at US
$50.00 a month or the sum of US $500.00 covering his salary for the unexpired portion
of his employment contract x x x as well as attorney' fees of 10% thereof."iv[4] His claim
for overtime pay and tips was dismissed for "lack of basis."v[5]
On 20 January 1995 petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the NLRC Order, but the
motion was denied on 6 February 1995 for lack of merit. Hence the instant petition.
Petitioners argue that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and seriously erred "in
stretching, at various points, what the evidence simply presented and disclosed,"vi[6] in
effect disregarding the rules of evidence pertaining to legal presumptions and the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. They contend that there can be no illegal dismissal
because the incident was respondent Sangil's own doing, and his refusal to go back to
the vessel was voluntary as evidenced by his affidavit drawn before the Consul of the
Philippine Embassy in Stockholm. They aver that respondent Sangil was responsible for
the whole incident as it was he who went into a rage and leaped at the Greek who had
to push him away in self-defense. And because there was water on the floor, he slipped
and hit his head on the steel molding of the door. Petitioners maintain that they had
nothing to do with the incident, and that it was in fact respondent Sangil who voluntarily
left the ship.
We are not impressed. On the contrary, we find the conclusion of the NLRC supported
by the evidence. Thus x x x this entry in the Logbook Abstract explains how the complainant got injured in the
head. The above-quoted entry says that complainant was "pushed and fell down and
suffered scalp trauma." So someone pushed complainant. Complainant did not
therefore slip and hit his head against the tight door molding as alleged by respondents
which was relied upon by the POEA Administrator in this appealed Decision.
So no less than the ship's Logbook Abstract tend to support complainant's allegation
that he is not the aggressor but a mere victim. This in turn explains why Athanasius
"Thanasi" Zakkas was fetched from the ship by the police in Stockholm for
questioning.vii[7]