G.R. No.

201018

UNITED COCONUT CHEMICALS, G.R. NO. 201018, INC., Petitioner

vs.VICTORIANO B. V ALMORES, Respondent PAGE 88

FACTS:

UCCI hired the respondent as its Senior Utilities Inspector with a monthly salary of ₱ll,194.00. He
then became a member of the United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. Employees' Labor Organization
(UELO) until his expulsion sometime in 1995.

 Due to the expulsion, UELO formally demanded that UCCI terminate the services of the respondent
3

pursuant to the union security clause of the CBA.

UCCI dismissed him on February 22, 1996.  He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the
4

NLRC.

ISSUE:What is the nature of UCCI's liability for payment of full backwages in this case?

LAW: The extent of the backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee has been set
in Article 279  of the Labor Code
24

CASE HISTORY:

The petitioner United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UCCI) appeals the decision promulgated on August
23, 2011,  whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the order of the National Labor Relations
1

Commission (NLRC)  to remand the case to the Labor Arbiter for the re-computation of the
2

respondent's full backwages.

RULING: UCCI is solely liable for the payment of backwages

Verily, the petitioner, as the employer effecting the unlawful dismissal, was solely liable for the
backwages of the respondent, its employee.

In General Milling Corporation v. Casio,  we explained the liability of the employer in case of the
33

unlawful termination pursuant to the union security provision of the CBA, viz.:

x x x x Despite a closed shop provision in the CBA and the expulsion of Casio, et al. from IBP-Local
31, law and jurisprudence imposes upon GMC the obligation to accord Casio, et al. substantive and
procedural due process before complying with the demand of IBP-Local 31 to dismiss the expelled
union members from service.

The failure of GMC to carry out this obligation makes it liable for illegal dismissal of Casio, et al.

In Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, the Court held that notwithstanding

the fact that the dismissal was at the instance of the federation and that the federation undertook to
hold the company free from any liability resulting from the dismissal of several employees, the
company may still be held liable if it was remiss in its duty to accord the would-be dismissed
employees their right to be heard on the matter.
OPINION: I agree. Case law imposes upon GMC the obligation to accord Casio, et al. substantive
and procedural due process

G.R. No. 201806

NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES CORPORATION, Ms. ROSALINDA CERDINA and/or

CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, Petitioners,vs.SANTIAGO S. ENRIQUEZ,, Respondent.

CITED IN DIFFERENT TOPIC- NOW, ON QUITCLAIM- PAGE 91.

FACTS: On February 27, 2008, petitioner North Sea Marine Services Corporation, for and on behalf
of its foreign principal, petitioner Carnival Cruise Lines, entered into a Contract of Employment  with
6

respondent for a period of six months which commenced on April 27, 2008, as Assistant Plumber for
the vessel MS Carnival Triumph.

On September 2, 2008, while in the performance of his duties, respondent experienced nape pains
that radiated to his upper back. The ship doctor diagnosed him to be suffering from mechanical back
pains and prescribed him with medicines.  However, due to the worsening of his back pains, he was
7

medically repatriated on October 5, 2008.

Upon arrival in Manila on October 7, 2008, respondent was immediately referred to the company-
designated physician, Dr. John Rabago (Dr. Rabago). After his discharge from the hospital,
respondent continuously reported to the orthopedic surgeon for medical treatment and evaluation.
On November 28, 2008, he was referred to a physiatrist to undergo physical therapy. 10

In a Medical Report  dated December 17, 2008, Dr. Rabago declared respondent fit to resume sea
11

duties, with the conformity of both the orthopedic surgeon and the physiatrist. Respondent thereafter
signed a Certificate of Fitness to Work,  releasing petitioners from all liabilities.
12

On February 25, 2009, respondent consulted an independent orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Venancio P.
Garduce, Jr. (Dr. Garduce), of the UP-PGH Medical Center, who certified his unfitness to work as a
seaman with the following findings:

Issues: Is the petitioners liable considering the certificate of fitness to work signed by the
respondent?

LAW: Section 20 B (3) of the POEA-SEC provides:

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance
equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has
been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one
hundred twenty (120) days.

CASE HISTORY:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari  assails the January 20, 2012 Decision  and May 8, 2012
1 2

Resolution  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117050, which dismissed the Petition
3

for Certiorari filed therewith and thus affirmed the June 25, 2010 Decision  and September 20, 2010
4

Resolution  of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordering petitioners North Sea
5

Marine Services Corporation, Ms. Rosalinda Cerdina, and Carnival Cruise Lines (collectively
petitioners) to pay respondent Santiago S·. Enriquez (respondent) US$80,000.00 as permanent
disability benefits, US$576.00 as balance for sickness wages, and 10% thereof as attorney's fees

RULING: No. not liable.

Besides, Dr. Rabagos fit to work assessment was supported by the Certificate of Fitness to Work
signed by respondent.

It bears to emphasize that respondent immediately caused the execution of this waiver or release in
favor of petitioners instead of disputing the fit to work declaration of Dr. Rabago.

We have held that not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy.  Absent any
32

evidence that any of the vices of consent is present, this document I executed by respondent
constitutes a binding agreement and a valid waiver in favor of petitioners.
33

In fine, we find Dr. Rabago's fit to work assessment a reliable diagnosis of respondent's condition
and should prevail over Dr. Garduce's appraisal of respondent's disability. Dr. Rabago’s timely
assessment, rendered within 120 days from respondent's repatriation, which was not properly
disputed in accordance with an agreed procedure, is considered final and binding.

OPINION: I agree.