G.R. No.
127195, August 25, 1999
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. and Diamantides
Maritime, Inc.. petitioners
vs NLRC and Wilfredo Cajeras, respondents
Ponente: Bellosillo
Facts:
Petitioners assail the decision of public respondent
NLRC affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision finding them
guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay
Wilfredo Cajeras salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of his employment contract, plus
attorney's fees.
Cajeras was hired by Marsaman, the local manning
agent of Diamantides as chief cook steward on MV
Prigipos, owned and operated by Diamantides, for a
period of 10 months with monthly salary of US$600.
Cajeras started work in August 1995 but in less than 2
months was repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by
mutual consent.
In November 1995 Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against petitioners with the NLRC-NCR
Arbitration branch alleging that he was dismissed
illegally, denying that his repatriation was by mutual
consent and asking for payment. That he was assigned
as chief cook, assistant cook and mess man in addition
assignment. And because of the added assignments, he
became sick and requested for medical attention but
was refused by the ship's captain. When the ship
docked in Holland, Cajeras were examined by a doctor
who recommended for the immediate repatriation of
Cajeras for some disease unknown.
In September 1995, Cajeras was handed his seaman's
service record book with the mutual consent as the
cause of discharge. Cajeras promptly objected for the
cause of discharge but was not able to do anything as
ha was immediately sent to the airport. After his arrival
in Manila, Cajeras complained to Marsaman but to no
avail.
Marsaman and Diamantides denied the imputation of
illegal dismissal, alleging that Cajeras approached the
captain and requested for repatriation and the doctors
diagnose showed that he is suffering from paranoia and
other mental problems.
In January 1996, Labor Arbiter resolved the dispute in
favor of Cajeras ruling that the manning company did
not show convincing evidence.
Petitioners then appealed to the NLRC, but NLRC
affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter. That petitioners
didn't proved the mutual consent especially by noting
that Cajeras did not actually sign his seaman's service
record book to signify his repatriation. The captain's
deck log was not considered reliable because Cajeras
was given opportunity to contest the entry.
Issue:
Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion
Ruling: Petition denied.
The employment of a Filipino seaman according to the
Standard Employment Contract may be terminated
when expiration of the contract unless Master and the
Seaman by mutual consent in writing agree to an early
termination. Of which, no document was shown to prove
the mutual consent. The deck log was not given credit
too because there was no signature showing that
Cajeras signify his conformity to the repatriation.
The medical diagnose of the examining doctor was not
credited too because the doctor was a medical
practitioner and didn't show expertise as to the diagnose
of paranoia and mental disease.
The attorney's fees awarded will suffice too because in
action for recovery of wages where an employee was
forced to litigate and incurred expenses to protect his
rights and interests, a maximum of 10% is legally and
morally justifiable to be entitled with the award.
As to the salaries, the rule has been that an illegally
dismissed worker whose employment if for a fixed
period shall be entitled to payment of his salaries
corresponding to the unexpired portion of his
employment. However, Section 10 of RA 8042 provides
that "...the worker shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at
twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for
the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for
three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term
whichever is less."
Court agree with petitioner that Cajeras can't be entitled
with the full payment of his unexpired term because he
served for less than two months but we disagree that
Cajeras is entitled to 3 months pay only because the law
is not clear also as to the terms of the payment thus as a
general rule in interpreting a statute that every part of
the word thereof be given effect.
NLRC's decision is affirmed.

LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN vs. PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE
TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C.
SALINAS G.R. No. 180636, 13 March 2013
FACTS:
Under the employment contract entered by Tangga-an
with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) for and
in behalf of its foreign employer, Universe Tankship
Delaware, LLC., he was to be employed for a period of
six months as chief engineer of the vessel the S.S.
“Kure”. He was to be paid a basic salary of
US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay equivalent to 15 days
a month or US$2,500.00 per month and tonnage bonus
in the amount of US$700.00 a month. On February
2002, Tangga-an was deployed but was dismissed on
April 2002. Tangga-an filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal with prayer for payment of salaries for the
unexpired portion of his contract, leave pay, exemplary
and moral damages, attorney’s fees and interest.
The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to be illegally
dismissed. As regards petitioner’s claim for back
salaries, LA said he is entitled not to four months which
is equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract, but
only to three months, inclusive of vacation leave pay and
tonnage bonus (or US$8,200 x 3 months = US$24,600)
pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or
The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
2005.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an illegally dismissed overseas
employee is only entitled to 3months back salaries.
G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner,
vs. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and
MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents.
FACTS:
The petitioner, Antonio Serrano (petitioner), a Filipino
seafarer, was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.
and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. (respondents) under a
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA)-approved Contract of Employment.
During the petitioner’s departure for work, he was
constrained to accept a downgraded employment
contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly
salary of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and
representation of respondents that he would be made
Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. The downgrade is
contrary to the Chief Officer post that he initially signed
up for. (with higher salary rate).
Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make
petitioner Chief Officer. Hence, petitioner refused to stay
RULING:
No. As held in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs.
NLRC, involving Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042,
that an illegally dismissed overseas employee is not
entitled to three (3) months salary only. A plain reading
of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which
amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas
contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or three
(3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less, comes into play only when the
employment contract concerned has a term of at least
one (1) year or more. This is evident from the wording
“for every year of the unexpired term” which follows the
wording “salaries x x x for three months.” To follow the
thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3)
months salary only simply because it is the lesser
amount is to completely disregard and overlook some
words used in the statute while giving effect to some.
Petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding
to the unexpired portion of his six-month employment
contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all
his corresponding monthly vacation leave pay and
tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided and
guaranteed in his employment contract as part of his
monthly salary and benefit package. Thus, petitioner is
entitled to back salaries of US$32,800 (or US$5,000 +
US$2,500 + US$700 = US$8,200 x 4 months). “Article
279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee’s full
backwages shall be inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent.” As we have time
and again held, “it is the obligation of the employer to
pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole
amount of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits
and bonuses and general increases, to which he would
have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed
and had not stopped working.”
on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the
Philippines on May 26, 1998.
Petitioner’s employment contract was for a period of 12
months, but at the time of his repatriation he had served
only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract,
leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9) months and
twenty-three (23) days. He then filed with the Labor
Arbiter (LA) a Complaint against respondents for
constructive dismissal and for payment of his money
claims in the total amount of US$26,442.73
LA Decision – Declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal
and awarding him monetary benefits. As to the benefits,
the LA based his computation on the salary period of
three months only
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC citing that in case of
illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their salaries for
the unexpired portion of their contracts
Respondents also appealed to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) to question the finding of
the LA that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
NLRC – The NLRC corrected the LA’s computation of
the lump-sum salary awarded to petitioner by reducing
the applicable salary rate.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but
this time he questioned the constitutionality of the
subject clause. Motion was denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA,
reiterating the constitutional challenge against the
subject clause.
CA- Dismissed petitioner’s motion due to technicality.
CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the
applicable salary rate; however, the CA skirted the
constitutional issue raised by petitioner.
Petitioner raised these main grounds to the Supreme
Court:
CA erred to not acknowledge the constitutional issues
raised by the petitioner on the constitutionality of said
law, which unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily limits
payment of the award for back wages of overseas
workers to three (3) months
The law in question is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 –
Migrant Workers Act, to wit:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. – x x x In case of termination of
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall
be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement
fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
The Arguments of Petitioner
Petitioner contends that the subject clause is
unconstitutional because
(1) it unduly impairs the freedom of OFWs to negotiate
for and stipulate in their overseas employment contracts
a determinate employment period and a fixed salary
package and
(2) It also impinges on the equal protection clause, for it
treats OFWs differently from local Filipino workers (local
workers) by putting a cap on the amount of lump-sum
salary to which OFWs are entitled in case of illegal
dismissal, while setting no limit to the same monetary
award for local workers when their dismissal is declared
illegal; that the disparate treatment
ISSUES:
Whether or not the subject clause violates Section 10,
Article III of the Constitution on non-impairment of
contracts?
Whether or not the subject clause violate Section
1,Article III of the Constitution, and Section 18,Article II
and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector
HELD:
NO. Petitioner’s claim that the subject clause unduly
interferes with the stipulations in his contract on the term
of his employment and the fixed salary package he will
receive is not tenable.
Section 10, Article III of the Constitution provides:
“No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed.”
The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that
laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation,
and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected.
As to laws already in existence, their provisions are read
into contracts and deemed a part thereof. Thus, the non-
impairment clause under Section 10, Article II is limited
in application to laws about to be enacted that would in
any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by
enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the
intention of the parties thereto.
2. YES. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution
guarantees:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the law.
Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all
members of the labor sector, without distinction as to
place of deployment, full protection of their rights and
welfare.
Such rights are not absolute. To be valid, the
classification must comply with these requirements: 1) it
is based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to
the purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing
conditions only; and 4) it applies equally to all members
of the class.
To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the
foregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic
security and parity: all monetary benefits should be
equally enjoyed by workers of similar category, while all
monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal
degree; none should be denied the protection of the
laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden imposed
on, others in like circumstances.