De La Cruz vs NLRC : 115527 : August 18, 1997 : J. Padilla : First Div... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/115527.htm habitual neglect of duty. They decided to seek outside the intervention when their second officer ignored their grievances. The fact that the Filipino 3rd officer eventually joined their cause gives credence to this allegation. If it were indeed true, as the POEA held, that petitioners ignored the grievance machinery in by-passing their 2/0, the best evidence to established this fact would have to come from the 2/0 himself who should have executed a specific denial that petitioners never brought their grievances to him. We agree with the Solicitor-General that the ruling in the cases of Wallem, Virjen, and Suzara should be applied in the case at bar. In these cases the Filipino seamen concerned applied effective pressure on their employers by raising the possibility of ITF interdiction should their demands remain unheeded. In petitioners case, it cannot be said that they acted unreasonably, oppressively or maliciously in going to the ITF-CSR. At that time, they had reasonable grounds to believe that private respondents were involved in double-bookkeeping, unpaid wages and poor working conditions. They cannot be held guilty of abandonment or decision in the absence of substantial evidence that they disembarked from the vessel with the intention never to return to their post. In sum, we hold that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it failed to grant petitioners counterclaim of illegal dismissal after finding that there was no just cause and due process in their repatriation. As we held in Wallem, there is a breach of contract when seamen are dismissed without just cause and prior to the expiration of the employment contracts and are entitled to collect from the owners or agent of the vessel their unpaid salaries for the period they were engaged to render the services.[18] WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is hereby SET ASIDE. The POEAs order of suspension for overseas employment for one year against petitioners is REVOKED and petitioners names are hereby ordered DELISTED in, or removed from the watchlist of the POEA. Private respondent Grace Marine Shipping Corporation is hereby ordered to pay petitioners their respective salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, the computation of which is referred to the NLRC for proper execution. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. [1] Annex B; B-1, rollo, pp.31-32. [2] Annex A, rollo, p. 38. [3] Annex B, Original Records, p. 232. It appears that petitioners conditional landing permits were revoked by the US Immigration on 12 June 1990 as a precaution due to their failure to reboard the vessel on the same day. [4] Annex C, Original Records. P. 210. The agreement itself was not presented in evidence but was repeatedly mentioned in the masters report and in the telex sent by Sinkai Shipping to private respondent Grace Marine on 14 June 1990. [5] Rollo, pp. 58-60. [6] Rollo, p. 100 [7] Rollo, pp. 100-101. [8] Citing Batangas Laguan Tayabas Co. v. NLRC, 212 SCRA 792. [9] Supra. [10] 7 of 8 Rollo, p. 12. 1/24/2016 11:10 PM