Phil-Singapore Transport Services Inc vs NLRC : 95449 : August 18, ... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/95449.htm in the contract of employment which authorizes the company to terminate employment without notice. The pertinent provision of the said employment contract reads as follows: However, in the event of serious misconduct or neglect of duty or breach by you of any rules or regulations imposed by the Company, the Company may without notice or payment in lieu of notice terminated your employment and all expenses for your repatriation will be borne by you.[22] The foregoing contractual provision is inapplicable in the situation of private respondent. The said provision applies only when the employee is liable for serious misconduct, neglect of duty or violation of company rules and regulations. Apparently, private respondent Estrada was not found guilty of any of these offenses. The allegation of petitioner that the private respondent committed neglect of duty or serious misconduct for refusing to obey the order of the charterer to tow the barge is unmeritorious. It was the professional opinion of private respondent that the mooring ropes which had been worn out during the vessels voyage were inadequate for maneuvering in close water situations and that an accident might result from using the said ropes. Thus, the private respondent, in refusing to tow the other vessel, wanted to secure the vessel of its safety and to save it from an impending peril. He simply did what a prudent and careful master of the vessel ought to do under the circumstances. By faithfully complying with his duty as master of the vessel, it would not be justified to punish him by terminating his employment for reasons not sanctioned by law and maritime usage. ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The resolution of the NLRC dated August 17, 1990 and its Resolution dated September 25, 1990 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur. 5 of 6 [1] Rollo, p. 14. [2] Rollo, pp. 14-24. [3] Rollo, p. 29. [4] Rollo, pp. 2-11. [5] San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, G.R. No. 53615, February 8, 1989. [6] Caltex Refinery Employees Association vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 102993, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 271. [7] San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, supra. [8] Businessday Information System and Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 103575, April 5, 1993, 221 SCRA 9. [9] Makati Haberdashery, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 83380-81, November 15, 1989. [10] GT Printers vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 100749, April 24, 1992, 208 SCRA 321. [11] Reyes vs. Minister of Labor, et. al., G.R. No. 48705, February 9, 1989. [12] Manila Electric Company vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 78763, July 12, 1989. [13] Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 106161, February 1, 1995, 241 SCRA 36. [14] Century Textile Mills, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 77859, May 25, 1988. [15] Section 3, Article XIII. [16] Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 82643-67, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 211. 1/24/2016 11:08 PM