6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
1999, the complaint was provisionally dismissed by the NLRC due to the failure of
petitioner to file the required position paper. Petitioner re-filed the complaint on March
2, 2000 accordingly.
In a Decision dated June 6, 2000, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of
merit,[4] based on the following findings:
x x x. “Incentive bonus” or reemployment bonus are benefits not found in
the POEA approved contract. These are benefits which are specifically
granted pursuant to an internal memorandum entitled “Employment
Conditions for Filipino Seafarers serving on board vessels of Bergesen D.Y.
ASA”. As stated in the said internal memorandum, entitlement to the
benefits therein (is) not automatic but (is) subject to some conditions. As
clearly stated in the said memorandum, the reemployment bonus is an
“incentive bonus system for reemployment upon signing for a subsequent
period.” x x x. In order that a seafarer, like the complainant, be entitled to
reemployment/incentive bonus, he must satisfy all of the following
requirements, to wit:
1) He must be employed in a vessel under a principal who is a
member of the reemployment bonus scheme;
2) He must have been an officer of the principal member’s vessel
subject to the additional conditions stated in page 2 of the
aforementioned internal memorandum; and
3) After serving in a principal-member’s vessel, he must be
reemployed in another or the same principal-member’s vessel.
To avail of the benefits under this scheme, seafarers like the complainant
has to prove that he met all the foregoing conditions. It is, thus, his burden
to prove that he is entitled to the said benefit. Complainant, however,
miserably failed to adduce evidence that he met all the foregoing conditions
for entitlement to the benefit. He relied on his unsubstantiated allegation
that a certain Captain D. Ramirez received an incentive bonus even if he did
not sign up with the Company. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
For obvious reasons, complainant’s claims for moral and exemplary damages
as well as attorney’s fees are denied. x x x.[5]
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and
ordered respondents to pay petitioner the amount of US$594.56 in a Decision dated
March 5, 2001. The pertinent portion of the NLRC’s decision states:
The Contract of Employment entered into between the complainant and the
respondents specifically set a term of eight (8) months which was supposed
to be from April 15, 1996 up to December 14, 1996. The complainant’s
length of service from December 15, 1996 to September 9, 1997, or a
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/45621
2/8