CASE DIGEST: Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.

 

ANTONIO M. SERRANO, petitioner, vs.

GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC., respondents

G. R. No. 167614               March 24, 2009

 

FACTS:

Serrano signed a Contract of Employment for Chief Officer, with basic monthly salary of US$1,400, with Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd for 12 months.

However on the date of his departure, March 19, 1998, petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000, upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.

Respondents did not deliver on their promise. Hence, petitioner refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998. Petitioner had only served 2 months and 7 days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days.

Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims, for the unexpired portion of his contract plus adjustments to chief mate’s salary, totaling US$26,442.73.

The last clause in paragraph 10 of RA 8042 states that “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.”

Relying on this, the LA based his computation on the salary period of 3 months only rather than the entire unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days of the petitioner’s employment contract. Thus, the LA awarded petitioner monetary benefits in the sum $8,770.00.

ISSUE(S):

What is the source of authority of the state to protect seafarers?

Why is there a need to protect workers and eliminate discrimination?

Who bears the burden of evidence in proving some labor standards claims?

RULING:

Equality is one ideal which cries out for bold attention and action in the Constitution. The Preamble proclaims "equality" as an ideal precisely in protest against crushing inequities in Philippine society. To address these inequities, our Constitution, has adopted the policy of social justice to guarantee social and economic rights to marginalized groups of society, including labor. Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law.

While these provisions on social justice are described as nonself-executing and does not directly bestow on the working class any actual enforceable rights, the provisions urges not only on the legislative and executive branches but also on the judiciary to translate this pledge into a living reality.

The law guarantees equal protection to all – that 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 18,63 Article II and Section 3,64 Article XIII accord all members of the labor sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare. 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.

Laws are presumed constitutional until they are proclaimed by the court to be otherwise. Generally, the petitioner has the burden of proof in proving that a statute is unconstitutional. But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection, it is incumbent upon the government to prove that there is a compelling state interest for the denial of such right.