BRIGHT
MARITIME CORPORATION (BMC)/DESIREE P. TENORIO, petitioners, vs. RICARDO B.
FANTONIAL, respondent
G.R. No. 165935 | February 8, 2012
FACTS:
On January 15, 2000, a Contract of
Employment was executed by petitioner BMC and respondent Ricardo B. Fantonial,
in which respondent shall be employed as boatswain of M/V AUK for 1 year.
Respondent was made to undergo a medical
examination at the Christian Medical Clinic, which was petitioner’s accredited
medical clinic, and was declared “FIT TO WORK.”
After having undergone the pre-departure
orientation seminar and equipped with the necessary requirements and documents
for travel, respondent was instructed by petitioners that he would be departing
on January 17, 2000 and that a liaison officer would deliver his plane ticket
to him at NAIA. However, petitioners’ liaison officer met respondent at the
airport and told him that he could not leave on that day due to some defects in
his medical certificate. The liaison officer instructed respondent to return to
the Christian Medical Clinic.
When respondent went back to Christian
Medical Clinic the next day, he was told by the examining physician that there
was nothing wrong or irregular with his medical certificate. Respondent went to
petitioners’ office for an explanation, but he was merely told to wait for
their call, as he was being lined-up for a flight to the ship’s next port of
call. However, respondent never got a call from petitioners.
On May 16, 2000, respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners.
Petitioner claims that respondent was not
declared fit to work due to some medical problems. Petitioners submitted the
Affidavit of Dr. Lyn dela Cruz-De Leon, stating that the said doctor examined
respondent on January 17, 2000; that physical and laboratory results were all
within normal limits except for the finding, after chest x-ray, of Borderline
Heart Size, and that respondent was positive to Hepatitis B on screening; that
respondent underwent ECG to check if he had any heart problem, and the result
showed left axis deviation. Petitioners further argued that they cannot be held
liable for illegal dismissal as the contract employment had not yet commenced.
Petitioners asserted that since respondent
was not yet declared fit to work on January 17, 2000, he was not able to leave
on the scheduled date of his flight to Germany to join the vessel. With his
non-departure, the employment contract was not commenced; hence, there is no
illegal dismissal to speak of.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employer-employee
relationship has already commenced between respondent and petitioner
RULING:
An employment contract, like any other
contract, is perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree upon its
terms; and (2) concur in the essential elements thereof: (a) consent of the
contracting parties, (b) object certain which is the subject matter of the
contract, and (c) cause of the obligation. The object of the contract was the
rendition of service by respondent on board the vessel for which service he
would be paid the salary agreed upon.
Hence, in this case, the employment
contract was perfected on January 15, 2000 when it was signed by the parties.
However, the employment contract did not commence since petitioners did not
allow respondent to leave on January 17, 2000 to embark the vessel M/V AUK in
Germany on the ground that he was not yet declared fit to work on the day of
departure.
In Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management,
Inc., the Court held that the employment contract did not commence when the
petitioner therein, a hired seaman, was not able to depart from the airport or
seaport in the point of hire; thus, no employer-employee relationship was
created between the parties.
Nevertheless, even before the start of any
employer-employee relationship, contemporaneous with the perfection of the
employment contract was the birth of certain rights and obligations, the breach
of which may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party. If the
reverse happened, that is, the seafarer failed or refused to be deployed as
agreed upon, he would be liable for damages.
Petitioners’ act of preventing respondent
from leaving and complying with his contract of employment constitutes breach
of contract for which petitioner BMC is liable for actual damages to respondent
for the loss of one-year salary as provided in the contract.
Comments
Post a Comment