5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 245370, July 13, 2020 ] EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., MAMA SHIPPING SARL AND CAPT. LEOPOLDO ARCILLA, PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION) AND JOHN P. LOYOLA, RESPONDENTS. DECISION J. REYES, JR., J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review assailing the Decision[1] dated August 31, 2018 and the Resolution[2] dated February 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. SP. No. 154877. John P. Loyola (Loyola) was employed by Eagle Clarc Shipping, Philippines, Inc. (Eagle Clarc), for and in behalf of its foreign principal, Mama Shipping Sarl (Mama Shipping), as an Able Seaman under an eight-month contract which started on November 12, 2015. His basic monthly salary was US$ 577.00, with fixed monthly overtime pay of US$ 283.00 and US$ 4.04 in excess of 70 hours, leave pay of US$ 144.00 per month, weekend compensation of US$ 150.00 and social benefits and bonus of US$ 126.00. The contract was supplemented by the Italian Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). On November 26, 2015, Loyola boarded the vessel MV Grande Luanda and he disembarked on February 2, 2016 or six months before the expiration of his contract. On October 19, 2016, Loyola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against Eagle Clarc, Mama Shipping and Capt. Leopoldo Arcilla, as officer of Eagle Clarc (herein petitioners), claiming that on January 29, 2016, he was called by Capt. Palerom Guiseppe and referred to Chief Mate Rago Francesco. He was shown a document which he refused to sign because he did not know the contents thereof. Because of his refusal to sign the document, Loyola was advised that he was terminated and forced to disembark from the vessel. He alleged that prior to his disembarkation, he was neither informed of the offense he allegedly committed nor afforded due process. He asked for the payment of his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract and other benefits, plus damages. Petitioners meanwhile averred that Loyola had difficulty performing his tasks. The Ship Master served a first formal warning to him which informed him of his breach of the Code of Conduct, incompetence and inefficiency in performing his duties on-board. A disciplinary hearing was set to investigate his alleged poor performance. The petitioners maintained that Loyola's dismissal on the ground of 'incompetency and inefficiency' was based on Section 33 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) in relation to Article 297 of the Labor Code. They https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66403 1/9

Select target paragraph3