E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
3 of 7
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58301
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
Petitioner raises the following errors allegedly committed by the CA:
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error when it
ruled that complainant is entitled to actual damages in the light of Paul v.
Santiago case, the doctrine of stare decis [sic] being inapplicable in the
instant case as to the issue of award of actual damages.
The Honorable NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it
ruled differently from Santiago case [on] the issue of actual damages
contrary to erroneous decision of the Court of Appeals that NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding Santiago case on the
issue of actual damages.
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it
disregarded the factual findings of the NLRC, that, if properly considered,
would justify petitioner's use of management prerogative.
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reinstating
the award of actual damages despite the want of any factual and legal
basis and again in missapplying [sic] Datuman case in the instant
case.[13]
The Court's Ruling
The issue boils down to whether the CA committed serious errors of law.
We rule in the negative.
There is no dispute that the parties entered into a contract of employment on 24
October 2002, and that petitioner failed to deploy respondent. The controversy arose
from the act of the foreign principal in promoting another person, an act that
effectively disregarded the contract dated 24 October 2002 entered into between
petitioner, on behalf of its foreign principal, and respondent. There was a clear
breach of contract when petitioner failed to deploy respondent in accordance with
the POEA-approved contract.
The Court is left with the issue of whether such breach would entitle respondent to
the payment of actual damages for the failure of petitioner to comply with the
latter's obligations in accordance with the employment contract.
It is the contention of petitioner that respondent's non-deployment was due to the
foreign principal's management prerogative to promote an able seaman. Supposedly,
this exercise of management prerogative is a valid and justifiable reason that would
negate any liability for damages.
3/27/2020, 1:05 PM