Ranises vs NLRC : 111914 : September 24, 1996 : J Francisco : Third ...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111914.htm
[Syllabus]
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 111914. September 24, 1996]
JORGE M. RANISES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, GRACE MARINE & SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET. AL.,
respondents.
DECISION
FRANCISCO, J.:
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside
the decision rendered by public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in
[1]
NLRC NCR Case No. 002020-91 dated September 14, 1992 and the resolution dated August
[2]
The assailed decision modified the judgment of the Philippine Overseas
20, 1993.
Employment Administration (POEA) in POEA Case No. (M) 90-09-1037 and declared that
although petitioners dismissal was carried out without due process, the same was however valid
and based on a just cause. The resolution in turn denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
As succinctly summarized by petitioner, the antecedents that led to this suit are as follows:
The Petitioner is a seaman and a holder of a Masters License and SCDB No. 130334. On January 18,
1990, he was hired by Orophil Shipping International Co. Inc. as Chief Mate to board a vessel M/V
Southern Laurel, an ocean going vessel owned and operated by its foreign principal Sinkai Shipping Co.
Ltd. Sometime on May, 1990, Sinkai Shipping Co. Ltd. changed its manning agent, Orophil Shipping
International Co. Inc., and appointed Grace Marine and Shipping Corp. as its new manning agent, who has
thereby responsibility for the above mentioned vessel.
On January 25, 1990 the Petitioner departed the Philippines to join the vessel based on his POEA
approved employment contract for a twelve (12) month period and with a stipulated wage of US$1,571.00
per month and 3 days leave pay per month.
Contrary to the agreed wage of US$1,571.00 per month as per POEA Contract, Petitioner since the time of
his engagement on board the vessel has been receiving only the sum of US$1,387.00 PER MONTH as
reflected in his pay slips, which prompted him to make enquiries (sic) and complaints on the under
payment (sic) and/or unauthorized deductions by the private respondents. It appears further that prior to
and at the time of his engagement, the vessel was under Collective Bargaining Agreement (ITF/JSU CBA)
stipulating for US$1,571.00 per month for the position of Chief Officer, which is the same position that
Petitioner occupies in the vessel.
On September 6, 1990, the Petitioner was repatriated to Manila, and feeling aggrieved, he brought lodged
(sic) a Complaint at the POEA against the Private Respondents for illegal dismissal, salary differential,
non-payment of overtime pay and leave pay.
[3]
Private respondents denied any liability to petitioner and alleged that although the latters
original employment contract provided for a basic monthly salary of US$1,571 for twelve (12)
1 of 6
1/20/2016 12:51 PM