Ranises vs NLRC : 111914 : September 24, 1996 : J Francisco : Third ...
2 of 6
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111914.htm
months, the same was subsequently revised upon the signing of a Special Agreement on
February 26, 1990 between the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF)/and Japan
Seamens Union (JSU)/ Associated Marine Officers and Seamens Union of the Philippines
(AMOSUP), of which petitioner is a member, and private respondent Sinkai Shipping Co. Ltd.
and Orophil Shipping International Co., Inc. The Special Agreement amended their existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement and reduced petitioners salary to US$1,387.00 a month for a
period of ten (10) months. It was expressly agreed upon that the Special Agreement shall be
retroactive from January 11, 1990, thereby, including petitioner within its coverage. Petitioner
refused to sign the new contract and instead requested that he be repatriated as he intended to
apply for a higher paying contract. Moreover, private respondents alleged that petitioner failed to
exhaust administrative remedies by not ventilating his complaint in accordance with the
grievance procedures provided in the POEA approved ITF/JSU/AMOSUP CBA.
On July 2, 1991, judgment was rendered by the POEA in favor of petitioner finding private
respondents guilty of illegal dismissal as petitioners repatriation was an offshoot of his demand
that he be paid the salary provided in his original contract, and ordered as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by ordering respondents to pay
complainant, jointly and severally the following:
1. US$7,226.48 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, representing the money equivalent of the
unexpired portion of the contract;
2. US$957.63 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment representing salary differentials;
3. Five percent (5%) of the total amount as attorneys fee.
SO ORDERED.
[4]
Thereafter, private respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC, which in turn arrived at a
different conclusion, modifying the ruling of the POEA, and rendered the assailed decision on
September 14, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, and in view thereof the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered
ordering respondent GRACE MARINE to pay complainant the following amounts:
1). US$ 1,375.00 or its peso equivalent as penalty for violation of procedural rules;
2). US$ 957.00 or its peso equivalent representing his leave pay differential which was only computed
based on three (3) days leave pay/month.
SO ORDERED.
[5]
Although it conceded that petitioners dismissal was effected without due process,
respondent NLRC nevertheless upheld petitioners termination from employment and justified the
same as a measure of self-protection on private respondent-employers part. Respondent
Commission ruled that there was just cause for petitioners dismissal because he committed acts
which tended to breed discontent among crew members by advocating and inciting a labor
[6]
dispute.
Taking exception to the foregoing decision of the NLRC, petitioner filed the instant petition
for certiorari, assailing the NLRC for having committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
judgment of the POEA. Petitioner argues that contrary to the conclusion of the NLRC, there was
no valid ground to support his dismissal. This fact, coupled with the absence of due process in
1/20/2016 12:51 PM