6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
latter that it had been meanwhile appointed by Neptank Bunkering Services Pte., Ltd.
as its exclusive local manning agency; that as one of the conditions of its appointment,
it was to immediately sever its manning contract with Baleen Marine; and that on
October 9, 1998, Baleen Marine had appointed JDA Inter-Phil as its new local agent for
Baleen Marine's vessels NP Trader No. 3 and NP Prima.[7]
On its part, IDA Inter-Phil insisted that although it had applied with the POEA for the
transfer and accreditation of Baleen Marine's vessels in its favor, it withdrew the
application and did not execute an affidavit of assumption and responsibility as
required; that, consequently, Pentagon continued to be jointly and severally liable with
Baleen Marine for the money claims of Madrio and Rubiano.[8]
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pentagon, declaring JDA Inter-Phil jointly and
solidarily liable with Baleen Marine, citing the decision of Labor Arbiter Pati in Abrazado,
et al. v. Pentagon International Shipping Services, et al. and Pentagon International
Shipping Services v. Baleen Marine PTE, Ltd., and/or Nicor Petroleum PTE, Ltd. that had
also involved both Pentagon and JDA Inter-Phil and their principal Baleen Marine.
However, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter on December 26, 2002[9] on the ground
that the NLRC's First Division had overturned Labor Arbiter Pati 's decision in Abrazado,
et al. v. Pentagon International Shipping Services, et al. and Pentagon International
Shipping Services v. Baleen Marine PTE, Ltd., and/or Nicor Petroleum PTE, Ltd..[10]
Upon Pentagon's motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself and ruled in favor
of Pentagon.
Subsequently, JDA Inter-Phil moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied on
December 14, 2004.[11]
JDA Inter-Phil brought a petition for certiorari in the CA, with application for temporary
restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction. The CA granted the TRO
applied for on February 9, 2005.[12]
On May 27, 2005, the CA rendered its assailed decision,[13] viz.:
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Resolutions of public respondent
NLRC, dated June 30, 2003 and December 14, 2004 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.[14]
Issues
In its appeal, Pentagon posits as follows:
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ABSOLVING PRIVATE RESPONDENT
JDA OF THE LIABILITIES NOTWITHSTANDING THE AGREEMENT DATED
OCTOBER 9, 1998.
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE APPARENT BAD
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61082
2/9