Synopsis/Syllabi
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 123901. September 22, 1999]
ENRIQUE A. BARROS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
TRANSORIENT MARITIME SERVICES, INC., DAISHIN SHIPPING CO., LTD. and
DOMINION INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the Decisioni[1] of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 27 December 1995, which reversed the
decisionii[2] of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) dated 18 January
1994, for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
On 28 July 1992 petitioner Enrique A. Barros, a licensed Marine Engineer, filed a complaintaffidavit before the POEA Adjudication Office against private respondents Transorient Maritime
Services, Inc., (TRANSORIENT) and Daishin Shipping Co., Ltd. (DAISHIN). His claim was for
illegal dismissal, recovery of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment
contract, repatriation expenses, unauthorized deductions and payments, an undetermined amount
for discrimination against him for being a Filipino, damages and attorneys fees. Dominion
Insurance Corporation was impleaded as party respondent by virtue of a bond it issued for its
bonded principal, TRANSORIENT.
Petitioner Barros alleged that on 21 July 1991 he was hired by DAISHIN through its local
manning agent TRANSORIENT to work as First Assistant Engineer on board its vessel M.V.
Monte Paloma for a period of twelve (12) months with a salary of US $830.00 and overtime pay
of US $370.00 a month. He claimed that on 26 November 1991, after almost four (4) months of
regular and efficient performance of his duties, he was ordered by his Japanese ship captain to go
home without giving him any explanation therefor, and on the same day, was repatriated to the
Philippines. Petitioner also imputed discriminatory acts to his Japanese superior, the Chief
Engineer, for which he claimed monetary award. He further maintained that all expenses for his
return were charged to him. He also alleged that the day after he arrived in the Philippines he
went to the office of TRANSORIENT to inquire about his hasty repatriation but was not given
any explanation by a certain Captain Viterbo. He was instead assured by Viterbo of another
employment.
Private respondents, on the other hand, admitted having deployed petitioner under the
circumstances claimed by him but denied having illegally dismissed him. They maintained that
petitioner was repatriated upon his own request as reflected in his seamans book; consequently,
the case must be dismissed as they did not commit any illegal termination of employment.