4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly limited only to the seafarer’s basic monthly salary or x x x include, based on civil law concept of damages as well as Labor Code concept of backwages, allowances/benefits or their monetary equivalent as a further relief to restore the seafarer’s income that was lost by reason of his unlawful dismissal[;] III. Whether x x x the indemnity awarded by the CA in petitioner’s favor consisting only of 3 months’ basic salaries [conform] with the proper interpretation of Section 10 R. A. 8042 and with the ruling in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira, et al., G.R. No. 144314, November 21, 2002 and related cases or is petitioner entitled to at least 4 months salaries being the unexpired portion of his contract[; and] IV. Whether x x x the CA’s disallowance of the award of attorney’s fees, based on the alleged absence of bad faith on the part of respondent, is in accordance with law or is the attorney’s fees awarded by the NLRC to petitioner, who was forced to litigate to enforce his rights, justified x x x[.] [20] Petitioner’s Arguments Petitioner essentially contends that respondents’ resort to an original Petition for Certiorari in the CA is erroneous because the issues they raised did not involve questions of jurisdiction but of fact and law. He adds that the CA Decision went against the factual findings of the labor tribunals which ought to be binding, given their expertise in matters falling within their jurisdiction. Petitioner likewise contends that the CA erred in excluding his vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus in the computation of his back salaries as they form part of his salaries and benefits under his employment contract with the respondents, a covenant which is deemed to be the law governing their relations. He adds that under Article 279 of the Labor Code, he is entitled to full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time he is actually reinstated. Petitioner accuses the CA of misapplying the doctrine laid down in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd.[21] He points out that the CA wrongly interpreted and applied what the Court said in the case, and that the pronouncement therein should have benefited him rather than the respondents. Petitioner would have the Court reinstate the award of attorney’s fees, on the argument that the presence of bad faith is not necessary to justify such award. He maintains that the grant of attorney’s fees in labor cases constitutes an exception to the general requirement that bad faith or malice on the part of the adverse party must first be proved. Finally, petitioner prays that this Court reinstate the Labor Arbiter’s monetary awards in his January 27, 2004 Decision or, in the alternative, to grant him full back salaries elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55699 6/12