E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 1 of 7 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58301 747 Phil. 762 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 195792, November 24, 2014 ] ABOSTA SHIP MANAGEMENT AND/OR ARTEMIO CORBILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. WILHILM M. HILARIO, RESPONDENT. DECISION SERENO, C.J.: Abosta Ship Management Corporation (petitioner) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2] dated 3 December 2010 and Resolution[3] dated 11 February 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 110745. The antecedents of this case are as follows: On 24 October 2002, an employment contract was executed by petitioner, on behalf of its foreign principal Panstar Shipping Co., Ltd., and respondent. In this contract, the latter was hired as a bosun (boatswain) of the foreign vessel Grand Mark for a period of nine months, with a monthly salary of USD566.[4] The contract was duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) on 25 October 2002.[5] On 27 November 2002, upon reporting to the office of petitioner, respondent was informed that the latter's deployment had been postponed due to shifting demands of the foreign principal. It appears, though, that the foreign principal decided to promote an able seaman on board the vessel instead of hiring respondent. Petitioner thus requested respondent to wait for another two to three months for a vacancy to occur.[6] In the meantime, respondent was allowed to make cash advances[7] as financial assistance. Eventually, on 28 January 2003, respondent filed a Complaint with the POEA against petitioner for violation of Section 2(r), Rule I, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules by failing to deploy respondent within the prescribed period without any valid reason. Respondent likewise filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter on 6 February 2003 based on the same ground and sought actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the Complaint, alleging that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the matter, as jurisdiction was supposedly lodged with the POEA. However, the Labor Arbiter denied the motion, stating that the action for 3/27/2020, 1:05 PM

Select target paragraph3