6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 201792, January 24, 2018 ]
WILFREDO P. ASAYAS, PETITIONER, V. SEA POWER SHIPPING
ENTERPRISES, INC., AND/OR AVIN INTERNATIONAL S.A., AND/OR
ANTONIETTE GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The seafarer hereby seeks to reverse and undo the adverse decision promulgated on
November 28, 2011,[1] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) nullified and set aside the
decision rendered on May 9, 2011 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
[2] that had affirmed the decision rendered by the Labor Arbiter on October 29, 2010
declaring him to have been illegally terminated from employment, and ordering the
respondents to pay him his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.[3]
Antecedents
Respondent Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. employed the petitioner as Third
Officer on board the M/T Samaria, a vessel owned by Avin International SA. On October
25, 2009, prior to the expiration of his employment contract, the shipowner sold the
M/T Samaria to the Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise, Pte. Ltd. As a consequence of
the sale, he was discharged from the vessel and repatriated to the Philippines under
the promise to transfer him to the M/T Platinum, another vessel of the respondents.
After he was not ultimately deployed on the M/T Platinum, he was engaged to work as
a Second Mate on board the M/T Kriti Akti. Before his deployment on board the M/T
Kriti Akti, however, the shipowner also sold the vessel to the Mideast Shipping and
Trading Limited on April 8, 2010. Thereafter, he was no longer deployed to another
vessel to complete his contract.[4]
On April 23, 2010, the petitioner complained against the respondents in the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) demanding the full payment of his
employment contract. His claim was settled through a compromise agreement with
quitclaim, pursuant to which he received separation pay after deducting his cash
advances.
Two months thereafter, the petitioner filed another complaint against the respondents
for alleged illegal dismissal and non-payment of the unexpired portion of his contract.
The complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. 04-05764-10.[5]
On October 29, 2010, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision in NLRC Case No. 0405764-10 declaring the termination of the petitioner's employment as illegal,[6]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63833
1/10