5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA's decision and reiterated its findings.[11]
Hechanova's claim for disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fee were dismissed.
[12] Hechanova moved for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in its November 22,
2016 Resolution.[13]Hechanova elevated the case before the CA.
The CA Decision
On August 28, 2018, the CA affirmed with modification the NLRC's decision. The CA
agreed with the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC that Hechanova's illness was
not work related; thus, Interorient may not be held liable for the disability benefits.[14]
However, the CA ordered Interorient to: (1) fully reimburse Hechanova of his placement
fee and deductions with 12% interest per annum; (2) salary for the unexpired portion
of his employment contract; and (3) attorney's fees at 10% of the wages recovered.
[15]
The CA explained that, pursuant to Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.,[16] the
monetary award shall be paid an employee in case of termination of overseas
employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract. The
records do not show any reason for the pretermination of Hechanova's contract. There
is no indication that Hechanova suffered from any illness or injury on board, or that he
complained against his employer, or that his employer complained of his poor
performance. What the records reveal was that Hechanova requested to be signed-off
from M/V Livadi. The CA elucidated that this is not a reason to deny him of the
monetary award due him. The CA gave credence to his allegation that he was signedoff because he was promised of redeployment upon his repatriation.[17]
Both parties moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its April 29, 2019
Resolution.[18] Notably, only Interorient filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45
before the Court. Hechanova did not file a petition from the denial of his motion for
reconsideration. Thus, the issue presented before the Court pertains only to
Interorient's standpoint.
The Issue Presented
Whether or not the CA erred in modifying the NLRC's decision and ordering the full
reimbursement of placement fee and deductions with interest, and salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract, with attorney's fees.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
In its Petition, Interorient argues that (1) there is no basis for the monetary award
because Hechanova did not claim them; (2) his poor performance, inefficiency and
incompetence were grounds to terminate his services; (3) the documents confirmed
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66482
3/6