6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
payment of overtime pay and attorney's fees against INC, Interorient and Reynaldo
Elamirez, corporate officer of INC[16] (collectively referred hereunder as petitioners).
In his Position Paper,[17] respondent alleged that he began working as seafarer in
August 2001. From 2001 to 2005, he worked for other employers and finished his
contracts with them in good standing. In August 2005, he started working for INC and
prior to his July 19, 2007 contract, he completed two contracts with INC without issue.
He stated that petitioners were claiming that he was dismissed due to his stiff arm.
However, he contended that he passed the medical and physical examination and
despite his condition, petitioners engaged his services. Furthermore, he asserted that
he was made to sign a report that terminated his contract without giving him the
opportunity to explain or defend himself.
For their part, petitioners stated in their Position Paper[18] that respondent joined the
vessel on July 25, 2007 but was repatriated on December 12, 2007.
They contended that the captain complained about his incompetence and/or poor
performance. In particular, due to his stiff right hand, respondent was allegedly unable
to serve meals and maintain the cleanliness of the kitchen, store room and mess room.
They averred that eventually the captain served upon him the above-cited Report
entitled as "Report of incompetent action/insubordination/ indiscipline" which he
refused to receive.
In addition, petitioners stated that the previous ship captain, under whom respondent
was deployed, likewise complained about his poor performance. They asserted that
because they wanted to give respondent another chance, they deployed him to M/V
Fortunia. Allegedly, respondent was allowed to re-apply for assignment in another
vessel and he readily agreed to be repatriated.
Petitioners argued that respondent admitted his faults as he did not outrightly file a
case; he even followed up his re-deployment with their fleet personnel officer. They
also emphasized that the complaint against them was barred by respondent's voluntary
execution of a quitclaim;[19] and that respondent's complaint was "absolutely malicious
and an afterthought on his part because if he was truly aggrieved by his repatriation,
he should not have executed such quitclaim."[20]
Riding of the Labor Arbiter
On April 27, 2009, the LA rendered a Decision declaring that petitioners illegally
dismissed respondent, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, we find the complaint against
respondents impressed with merit. Accordingly the latter is held liable to pay
complainant the salaries equivalent to eight months unexpired portion of the
ten[-]month employment contract. Further awarded is ten percent of the
total judgment award as attorney's fees, the computation of which is shown
in Annex 'A' and made an integral part hereof.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61248
2/10