You are on page 1of 1
Dela Cruz v. Maersk W/N employee was illegally dismissed by respondents - YES (1) Yes, due to violation on procedural due process. He was not given the two (2) notice requirements as provided for under POEA Revised Standard Employment Terms and Conditions overning the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean​Going Vessels In CAB, the logbook entries did not substantially comply with the first notice, or the written notice of charge(s). It did not state the particular acts or omissions for which petitioner was charged. How exactly was he unable to live up to the company's SMS job description of a third engineer? Moreover, records were devoid of any proof indicating that employee was ever given an opportunity to present his side. W/N employee was a regular employee EE: a regular employee when his services were terminated; ER: insisted that he was then still on probationary status. Thus, they are entitled to dismiss him in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 (7) of the CBA (which allows the master to terminate the contract of one under probation by merely serving a written notice 14 days prior discharge) SC: seafarers are not covered by the term regular employment, as defined under Art 280 (Brent case, then reiterated in Coyoca v. NLRC) Considered contractual employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen Even the POEA Standard Employment Contract itself mandates that in no case shall a contract of employment concerning seamen exceed 12 months. RATIONALE? mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer. Seafarers' limited access to shore activity during their employment has been shown to adversely affect them. Diversity in nationality, culture and language among the crew necessitates the limitation of the period of employment.