Dipasupil, Kris Myzel C.

Module 9: Case Study

G.R. No. 82252 February 28, 1989

SEAGULL MARITIME CORP. AND PHILIMARE SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, petitioners
vs.
NERRY D. BALATONGAN, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, respondents.

QUESTIONS:
1. Who was/were the petitioner/s?
The petitioners in this case are Seagull Maritime Corp. and Philimare Shipping & Equipment Supply.

2. Who was/were the respondent/s?

The respondent in this case is Nerry D. Balatongan.

3. What was the issue to be resolved?

Whether or not the supplementary contract of employment entered into between petitioners and
respondent is a prohibited practice to afford greater benefits to the employee.

4. Which Labor Code Articles were mentioned? How were these related to the case at hand?
Article 34 was mentioned in this case, which governs to ensure that the employee shall not thereby be
placed in a disadvantageous position and that the same are within the minimum standards of the terms and
conditions of such an employment contract set by the POEA. And in this case, Philimare and Seagull
Maritime Corporation did not follow the terms and conditions of their supplementary contract where
Nerry D. Balatongan was in disadvantageous disposition.

5. What was the decision? What were the basis/bases for the decision?
The decision of the court is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The Court finds that the respondent NLRC
did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners, motion for leave to file third-party
complaint and substitution inclusion of party respondent. Such motion is largely addressed to the
discretion of the said Commission. Inasmuch as the alleged transfer of interest took place only after the
POEA had rendered its decision, the denial of the motion so as to avoid further delay in the settlement of
the claim of private respondent was well-taken.