De La Cruz vs NLRC : 115527 : August 18, 1997 : J. Padilla : First Div... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/115527.htm the quagmire of helplessness. Further, it would be highly irregular and unfair if only the respondents are made to suffer from fault, the very root of which was not their own doing. Otherwise, discrimination against Filipino seafarers will flourish, an eventuality surely destructive of the countrys good name. Even respondents dismissal were [sic] in disregard of due process of law. On this basis alone, the complainant cannot be left unadmonished.[7] (emphasis supplied) In the case at bar, petitioners raise two (2) issues: I Whether or not the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of and/or in excess of jurisdiction when it did not annul and set aside the decision of the POEA based on its own conclusion that petitioners did not abandon their work. II Whether or not the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in not awarding petitioners counterclaim despite its finding that petitioners dismissal were [sic] in disregard of due process of law. Petitioners contend that the NLRC dismissed private respondents allegations of abandonment and breach of contract against them for lack of factual basis; meaning, there was no just cause for their dismissal and repatriation. The NLRC also held that they were dismissed without due process of law. Since the POEAs decision justified petitioners suspension and the recovery of repatriation expenses by private respondent based on abandonment of work, then the NLRC should have set aside both orders when it held that the matter of alleged abandonment of the vessel was truthfully refuted by petitioners. Petitioners further contend that neither the POEA nor the NLRC found evidence of deliberate, unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[8] The fact that they sought the CSR or ITF intervention cannot be taken as overt acts which unerringly show that the employee does not want to work anymore,[9] but as a legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. Besides, the act of seeking intervention of the ITF or CSR, or any other group is not even an offense under the Table of Offenses and Correspondent Administrative Penalties in the POEA Standard Contract.[10] Therefore, the POEA had no basis to hold that petitioners seriously breached their POEA approved contracts when they failed to follow its grievance machinery provisions. There being a clear case of illegal dismissal, they should be awarded their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract. In its memorandum,[11] private respondent argues that both the NLRC and the POEA found substantial evidence which showed that petitioners breached their contracts when they abandoned their respective posts on 12 June 1990 which unnecessarily delayed the schedule of M/V White Castle and caused it to suffer US $19,114.83 in repatriation expenses. However, petitioners have misinterpreted the NLRC decision to mean that private respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal and should be made to pay their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contracts. In private respondents view, the NLRCs statement that at the inception of the whole controversy the parties were at fault, giving both of them no recourse at law and that the decision appealed from to some extent must be left unmolested meant that the NLRC upheld the factual findings and the conclusions of the POEA administrator except that it deleted the award of repatriation expenses and 5% attorneys fees for lack of factual and legal bases. 4 of 8 1/24/2016 11:10 PM