4/10/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
693 Phil. 193
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 154213, August 23, 2012 ]
EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN MARITIME LTD. AND AGEMAR
MANNING AGENCY, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. ESTANISLAO SURIO,
FREDDIE PALGUIRAN, GRACIANO MORALES, HENRY CASTILLO,
ARISTOTLE ARREOLA, ALEXANDER YGOT, ANRIQUE BATTUNG,
GREGORIO ALDOVINO, NARCISO FRIAS, VICTOR FLORES, SAMUEL
MARCIAL, CARLITO PALGUIRAN, DUQUE VINLUAN, JESUS
MENDEGORIN, NEIL FLORES, ROMEO MANGALIAG, JOE GARFIN
AND SALESTINO SUSA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
On appeal is the decision the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on December 21,
2001 affirming the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
declaring itself to be without appellate jurisdiction to review the decision of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) involving petitioners’ complaint
for disciplinary action against respondents.[1]
Respondents were former crewmembers of MT Seadance, a vessel owned by petitioner
Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. and manned and operated by petitioner Agemar
Manning Agency, Inc. While respondents were still on board the vessel, they
experienced delays in the payment of their wages and in the remittance of allotments,
and were not paid for extra work and extra overtime work. They complained about the
vessel’s inadequate equipment, and about the failure of the petitioners to heed their
repeated requests for the improvement of their working conditions. On December 19,
1993, when MT Seadance docked at the port of Brofjorden, Sweden to discharge oil,
representatives of the International Transport Federation (ITF) boarded the vessel and
found the wages of the respondents to be below the prevailing rates. The ensuing
negotiations between the ITF and the vessel owner on the increase in respondents’
wages resulted in the payment by the vessel owner of wage differentials and the
immediate repatriation of respondents to the Philippines.
Subsequently, on December 23, 1993, the petitioners filed against the newlyrepatriated respondents a complaint for disciplinary action based on breach of discipline
and for the reimbursement of the wage increases in the Workers Assistance and
Adjudication Office of the POEA.
During the pendency of the administrative complaint in the POEA, Republic Act No.
8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) took effect on July 15,
1995. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 vested original and exclusive jurisdiction
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55060
1/8