E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
2 of 7
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58301
damages arising from employment relations was clearly within its jurisdiction.
On 13 February 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) granted
petitioner's appeal and reversed the Labor Arbiter's Order. The NLRC held that
considering no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties, the
POEA had jurisdiction over the case. The claim for non-deployment was
administrative in character, and sanctions may be imposed by the POEA.[8]
Respondent consequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA questioning the
ruling of the NLRC.
On 17 March 2006, the CA granted the Petition. It pointed out that Section 10 of the
Labor Code provides that the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter includes claims arising
by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment,
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
Meanwhile, the POEA has jurisdiction over pre-employment cases that are
administrative in character. Thus, respondent's Complaint was reinstated.[9]
After the parties submitted their respective Position Papers, the Labor Arbiter
ordered petitioner to pay respondent his salary for nine months in the amount of
USD 10,071. The Labor Arbiter found that the contract executed between the parties
and the non-fulfillment thereof entitled respondent to his salary for the whole
duration of the contract. However, the arbiter did not find bad faith, which would
have merited the award of moral damages.[10]
This Decision prompted petitioner to appeal to the NLRC. On 11 March 2009, it held
that respondent's non-deployment was due to a valid exercise of the foreign
principal's management prerogative, which should be given due respect. Thus, the
NLRC dismissed the Complaint, but ordered petitioner "to comply with our directive
to deploy respondent as soon as possible or face the inevitable consequences."[11]
Dissatisfied with the NLRC's ruling, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
CA. On 3 December 2010, it granted the Petition and held that the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion by holding that the able seaman's promotion was a valid
management prerogative. The CA further ruled that since respondent had already
been hired for the same position, then there was no longer any vacant position to
which to promote the able seaman. Moreover, under the POEA Rules, petitioner
assumed joint and solidary liability with its foreign principal, and was thus liable to
respondent. It thus found the NLRC's Decision to be contrary to law and prevailing
jurisprudence. Finally, the CA ruled that NLRC's Order for petitioner "to deploy
respondent as soon as possible or face inevitable consequences" was "nonsensical"
considering that the controversy arose from way back in 2002, and that the assailed
Order was issued in 2009.[12]
The CA likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner. Hence, this
Petition.
3/27/2020, 1:05 PM