4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 415 Phil. 447 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 139420, August 15, 2001 ] ROBERTO R. SERRANO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. AND A.P. MOLLER, RESPONDENTS. DECISION PUNO, J.: Were it not for petitioner's relentless efforts, his claim for portions of his salary as a seaman would now be sunk into oblivion. The ebb and flow of his claim will now rest as he is finally awarded what has long been due him. This is a petition for review on certiorari to nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 1999 and July 15, 1999 dismissing outrightly the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner for having been filed out of time. The following facts spurred the present controversy: From 1974 to 1991, respondent Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., the local agent of respondent foreign corporation A.P. Moller, deployed petitioner Serrano as a seaman to Liberian, British and Danish ships.[1] As petitioner was on board a ship most of the time, respondent Maersk offered to send portions of petitioner’s salary to his family in the Philippines. The amounts would be sent by money order. Petitioner agreed and from 1977 to 1978, he instructed respondent Maersk to send money orders to his family. Respondent Maersk deducted the amounts of these money orders totaling HK$4,600.00 and £1,050.00 Sterling Pounds from petitioner's salary.[2] Respondent Maersk, it is also alleged, deducted various amounts from his salary for Danish Social Security System (SSS), welfare contributions, ship club, and SSS Medicare. It appears that petitioner's family failed to receive the money orders petitioner sent through respondent Maersk.[3] Upon learning this in 1978, petitioner demanded that respondent Maersk pay him the amounts the latter deducted from his salary. Respondent Maersk assured him that they would look into the matter, then assigned him again to board one of their vessels. Whenever he returned to the Philippines, petitioner would go to the office of respondent Maersk to follow up his money claims but he would be told to return after several weeks as respondent Maersk needed time to verify its records and to bring up the matter with its principal employer, respondent A.P. Moller. Meantime, respondent Maersk would hire him again to board another one of their vessels for about a year. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52537 1/9