Singa-Ship Mgmt Phil Inc vs NLRC : 120276 : July 24, 1997 : J. Puno ... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/120276.htm After hurling invectives at the master, private respondent calmed down and returned to his cabin. The record is silent as to the events that occurred after he struck the bosun. In fine the totality of the circumstances of the case does not show animo non revertendi and private respondent cannot be deemed to have deserted the vessel. We agree with the finding of the respondent Commission that private respondent was, at the height of their argument, ordered by the captain to disembark from the vessel.[15] To the mind of private respondent, the order to disembark was an order of dismissal from his job especially after he had assaulted the bosun. This explains why after the incident he did not report to petitioner's office in Manila nor did he file a complaint with the POEA. Moreover, being a seaman and radio officer was private respondent's means of livelihood. It is hard to believe that he, simply because of a conflict with the ship captain, would decide to abandon his work and not return to it. As noted by the Solicitor General, private respondent would not intentionally get himself stranded in a foreign land without means of support if he was not dismissed.[16] The fact that he did not voluntarily resign but was dismissed from his employment is more in keeping with the ordinary experience of mankind. His dismissal was, however, with a valid cause. The master was acting in the performance of his duty when he particularly demanded from the private respondent an explanation for his group's tardiness. Private respondent was the highest ranking employee in the group. But instead of giving an explanation, private respondent shouted at the master and cursed him. This was an act of gross disrespect and insubordination against his superior and the highest official of the vessel.[17] Worse was private respondent's unprovoked assault on the bosun. This was made in the presence of several people who executed separate statements narrating the incident.[18] Private respondent did not deny nor refute the statements, much less did he explain his aggressive behavior. A seaman's assault with a pistol handle upon a member of the ship's crew without sufficient provocation is tantamount to serious misconduct in connection with his work and a just cause for termination of employment.[19] We have ruled that such misconduct strips him of his right to his salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract.[20] Nevertheless, private respondent's claims for unpaid leave, allotment and shipboard pay cover the month of July 1989 and do not cover the unexpired portion of the contract. The respondent Commission did not err in granting said claims for the reason that private respondent rendered work for July prior to his dismissal. Petitioner's claim for expenses incurred in hiring a replacement for private respondent cannot be sustained. Section H (5), Part II[21] of the POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels[22] is not applicable. Private respondent did not voluntarily resign. He was dismissed. It was only incumbent upon petitioner to look for his replacement. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is affirmed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Torres, Jr., J., on official leave. 4 of 5 [1] Complaint, Annex "C" to the Petition, Rollo, p. 42. [2] Ship rules and regulations on shore leave require them to be back at the ship at 5:00 P.M. (Petition, p. 6, Rollo, p. 13.) [3] Also referred to as "boatswain" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 244 [1971]). 1/24/2016 9:37 PM