6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In the case at bar, mere is a paucity of evidence to establish the charges of
absenteeism and tardiness. We note that the employer company submitted
mere handwritten listing and computer print-outs. The handwritten listing
was not signed by the one who made the same. As regards the print-outs,
while the listing was computer generated, the entries of time and other
annotations were again handwritten and unsigned.
We find that the handwritten listing and unsigned computer print-outs were
unauthenticated and, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence of
which the listing and print-outs are of that nature should be rejected
as evidence without any rational probative value even in
administrative proceedings. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, there could be no fraudulent concealment on Godinez's part.
Even if it is true that Godinez suffered from insomnia and paranoia and he failed to
disclose this fact, we do not believe that the omission was intentional and fraudulent.
As the labor tribunals and the CA correctly opined, the fact may have simply "slipped
his mind considering the passage of time"[46] since his bout with insomnia and
paranoia occurred when he was only 15 years old. Given his age, innocence, and lack of
experience at the time he was applying for work with Career, one is not quick to
assume that Godinez was capable of deception or prevarication; as a young boy
breaking into the world and facing the prospect of serious honest work for the first time
in his life, it can be said that he innocently believed this fact to be unimportant and
irrelevant. In any event, Career and Columbian's defense is grounded on Section 20(E)
of the POEA contract which, to be applicable, requires that the seafarer must knowingly
conceal his past medical condition, disability, and history. This cannot apply in
Godinez's case. If he were a seasoned and experienced seafarer, this Court would have
viewed his failure to disclose in a different way.
Nature and Cause of Godinez's Illness
On the other hand, the Court believes that Godinez was unjustifiably maltreated by his
superior, 2nd Officer Dayo, who, according to the former in his Position Paper below —
x x x suddenly became irritated and angry at the complainant x x x, ordered
and forced complainant to clean the toilets as punishment instead of
performing his regular functions and duties on board as watch on the bridge.
Then, Second Officer Dayo became rude to him, always finding fault in him,
humiliating him or giving him conflicting orders such as cleaning all the
toilets instead of performing the look-out job which he regularly performed
from 12:00 P.M. - 16:00 P.M. and 00:00 - 04:00 A.M. In every instance
when there is an opportunity to accuse him, Second Officer Dayo would snap
at him, nag him and shout to him in front of everyone while the poor
complainant cadet was performing his four-hour watch job. In other words,
these harrowing experiences became regular. Such daily and regular acts of
harassment by the said Second Officer took its toll on the emotional and
psychological health of the complainant. He was traumatized and it had
become so unbearable for him to continue working.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469
20/31