In this meeting, the Shipmaster read to him the offenses he committed on board. He was asked to
answer the charges but petitioner opted to remain silent. Thereafter, petitioner was informed that
he was dismissed.
The next day, petitioner was repatriated to the Philippine through the assistance of the Philippine
Consulate.
Upon arrival or on February 16, 1993, petitioner filed with the POEA a complaint for illegal
dismissal against private respondents. He sought the payment of his salary corresponding to the
unexpired portion of his contract, unpaid overtime pay, leave pay, salary differential and
damages.
In answer to the complaint, private respondent stated that prior to petitioners deployment, he was
asked if he knew how to prepare the victualling cost statement which he answered yes. On
January 6, 1993, petitioner was asked to prepare the statement. He refused and even arrogantly
replied that the Shipmaster should let some other officer do the job since he only came to the
ship to cook. On January 13, 1993, petitioner left the vessel without permission and did not
perform his job that day. On January 14, 1993, a committee was formed to hear the case of
petitioner. Petitioner remained silent so the committee decided to send him home. Contrary to
petitioners allegation, it was not the Philippine Consulate, but the shipowners agent, Navios Ship
Agencies, which arranged his repatriation. The respondent noticed petitioner to be very homesick
and surmised that he deliberately committed the offenses just so he could be sent home. Upon his
return, petitioner did not even report to the local representative UPLI implying that he had no
cause of action against them. Petitioner was terminated for just cause and must, therefore,
reimburse private respondent for the cost of repatriation.
On April 6, 1994, the POEA promulgated a decision finding that there was just cause for
petitioners dismissal.
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Commission affirmed in
toto the POEA decision.
Hence, this petition.
To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two (2) requisites must concur: (a) the
dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code, and (b) the
employee must be accorded due process, the elements of which are notice and the opportunity to
be heard and to defend himself.i[1]
Procedural due process requires that the employee must be apprised of the charges against him.
He must be given reasonable time to answer the charges, allowed ample opportunity to be heard
and defend himself, and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires.ii[2] Two written
notices are required before termination of employment can be legally effected. They are: (1)
notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is
sought, and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to