4/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Contract (POEA-SEC), claims arising from the employment shall be filed within three
years from the date the cause of action accrues. Thus, Gallego's claims should be
denied because he failed to timely file an action against the employers.[7]
In a Decision[8] dated December 16, 2004, the National Labor and Relations
Commission (NLRC), through Labor Arbiter (LA) Ricardo Barrios, Jr., held that Gallego
was illegally dismissed. Gallego cannot be dismissed from his service without any just
or valid causes as provided under the labor laws. The LA held that the respondents
were "guilty of deliberate fraud in withholding from [Gallego's] knowledge that M/V
Eastern Falcon was already sold x x x to another shipping company" when he was
disembarked from the vessel.[9] There was no proof that Gallego had been informed of
the pre-termination of his employment because the vessel, M/V Eastern Falcon, was
sold. There was also no proof that WALLEM complied with the provisions of the POEASEC on termination of employment. Gallego had only been assured by respondents that
he would be re-deployed after the results of the training of the newly recruited crew
members of M/V Eastern Falcon were released. The LA held that respondents
disregarded Gallego's right to security of tenure, and failed to comply with the twinnotice requirement for a valid dismissal. Gallego was ordered reinstated without loss of
seniority rights, privileges, and other benefits afforded to him by law. Respondents
were also ordered to pay Gallego his unpaid salaries for fifteen months from September
2000 to December 2001 amounting to US$29,200.00 and partial backwages from
January 2002 to December 2004 amounting to US$72,076.00. Moral and exemplary
damages were also awarded in the total amount of US$250,000.00.[10]
Respondents appealed the Decision with the NLRC, which reversed the decision of the
LA. The NLRC held that the action filed by Gallego was barred by prescription. Under
Section 30 of the POEA-SEC, a suit on any claim arising from the employment contract
of a seafarer shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrues.
The NLRC held that the reckoning point to apply the prescriptive period is from the time
Gallego was dismissed from employment and repatriated in August 2000. The labor
complaint was filed only on July 1, 2004, which is beyond three years from Gallego's
repatriation. The NLRC held that Gallego may no longer pursue his claims against the
respondents.[11]
Gallego filed his Petition for Certiorari[12] under Rule 65 with the CA arguing that his
cause of action arose only in February 2003, when he realized that WALLEM had no
intention to process his re-deployment; and not from the time of his repatriation in
August 2000. In a Decision[13] dated September 27, 2006, the CA ruled in favor of
Gallego. The CA held that the NLRC erred in considering Gallego's repatriation in
August 2000 as the reckoning point in applying the rule on prescription. Facts show
that after repatriation, he had been told to wait for the result of the training of the
newly recruited crew members of M/V Eastern Falcon. Gallego was given assurances
that he would be rehired and was never told that his contract was shortened due to the
sale of the ship. The CA agreed with Gallego that his cause of action accrued in
February 2003, "for it was then that x x x Wallem made its last false promise to
petitioner for the latter's reinstatement and so committed an act or omission
'constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant [to] the plaintiff."' Gallego's
cause of action could have accrued when he previously requested for re-deployment
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66264
2/8