4/1/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Master and the vessel's senior officers. He also found Flores to have been paid all his
monetary entitlements.
On appeal by Flores, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in its decision of
December 29, 2000, [5] reversed the labor arbiter's ruling. The NLRC found that the
agency and Panstar failed to prove (1) that Flores' termination of employment was for a
just or authorized cause and (2) that he was accorded due process. It opined that the
main basis for the dismissal action against Flores was the accusation that he agitated
the crew to rebel against the authorities of M/V Morning Charm, as reported by the
Chief Officer (Chief Mate) and the 1st Assistant Engineer. The reports, the NLRC believe,
did not constitute proof of the validity of the dismissal.
Moreover, the NLRC noted that Flores was dismissed immediately after the Master
conducted his inquiry on November 17, 1997. It stressed that the Master's so called
administrative inquiry did not satisfy the due process requirements, as Flores was not
given an adequate time for his defense.
Accordingly, the NLRC declared Flores to have been illegally dismissed. It directed the
agency and Panstar to pay Flores, jointly and severally, US$2,184.00 as salary for the
unexpired portion of his contract, P50,000.00 in moral damages, and P25,000.00 in
exemplary damages, plus 10% attorney's fees. The agency moved for reconsideration,
but the NLRC denied the motion in its order of July 18, 2001. [6] The agency then
sought relief from the CA, through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
The CA Ruling
In its first assailed resolution (dated October 20, 2003), [7] the CA dismissed the
petition due to insufficiency in substance, [8] as the petitioner failed to show that the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor arbiter's decision
finding Flores' dismissal legal. It sustained the NLRC's conclusion that the dismissal was
without a valid cause and that Flores was denied due process.
The second assailed CA resolution [9] denied the agency's motion for reconsideration,
prompting the agency's present appeal [10] to this Court.
The Petitioner's Case
Through its submissions -- the petition itself, [11] the reply to Flores' comment [12] and
the memorandum [13] -- the agency contends that in affirming the NLRC ruling, the CA
deviated from the "substantial evidence rule" in quasi-judicial proceedings. It argues
that Flores' employer, Panstar, met this standard of evidence through the affirmative
declarations (reports) of Capt. B.H. Mun, Chief Officer Alfredo R. de Luna and 1st
Assistant Engineer Rodolfo Escarola that Flores committed the infractions which led to
his dismissal. In the face of these positive statements, the agency points out that
Flores could only offer bare and self-serving denials. It stresses too that, contrary to
the impression of the NLRC and the CA, Flores' dismissal was not only for inciting
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52684
3/10