LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN,
petitioner, vs.
PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C.
SALINAS, respondents.
G. R. No. 180636 March 13, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner, Tangga-an, entered into an overseas employment
contract 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 6 months as a chief engineer of the vessel S. S. “Kure”.
While performing his assigned task, petitioner noticed that
while they were loading liquid cargo, the vessel suddenly listed too much at
the bow. At that particular time both the master and the chief mate went on
shore leave together, which under maritime standard was prohibited. To avoid
any conflict, he chose to ignore the unbecoming conduct of the senior officers
of the vessel.
While the vessel was still at sea, the master required
Tangga-an and the rest of the Filipino Engineer Officers to report to his
office where they were informed that they would be repatriated because of the
delay in cargo discharging, which was principally a duty belonging to the deck
officers. He imputed the delay to the non-readiness of the turbo generator and
the inoperation of the boom, since the turbo generator had been prepared and
synchronized for 3.5 hours or even before the vessel arrived in Japan. Upon
verification, however, it was found out the the boom was operational and that
the cargo hold was not immediately opened and the deck officers concerned did
not prepare the stock. Moreover, while cargo discharging was ongoing, both the
master and the chief mate again went on shore leave together at 4:00 in the
afternoon and returned to the vessel only after midnight. To save face, they
harped on the Engine Department for their mistake. And Tangga-an and the other
Engineering Officers were ordered to disembark from the vessel on April 2, 2002
and thereafter repatriated.
Tanga-an filed for a Complaint for illegal dismissal and
prayed for the payment of his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
contract.
On January 27, 2004, the LA rendered the petitioner’s
dismissal illegal for lack of just cause and for failure to comply with the
twin requirements of notice and hearing and that the petitioner is not entitled
to 4 months back salaries but only for 3 months pay, inclusive of vacation
leave pay and tonnage bonus, pursuant to Sec. 10 of RA NO. 8042.
ISSUES:
Whether Tangga-an is entitled only to receive a 3-month
worth of back salaries and not for the salaries for the unexpired portion of
his contract.
RULING:
The courts should read and apply labor pronouncements with
utmost care and caution, for at the very heart of the judicial system, labor
cases occupy a special place. More than the State guarantees of protection of
labor and security of tenure, labor disputes involve the fundamental survival
of the employees and their families, who depend upon the former all the basic
necessities in life.
In a case where an illegally dismissed employee’s employment
contract has a term of less than 1 year, the Court stated that the choice
whether to award his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or 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 1 year or more. Applying this pronouncement, petitioner should be
entitled to recovery of salaries representing the unexpired portion of his
contract employment.
Comments
Post a Comment