PAUL V. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. CF SHARP CREW
MANAGEMENT, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 162419 | July 10, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner had been working as a seafarer
for Smith Bell Management Inc. for about 5 years. On February 3, 1998, he
signed a new contract of employment with respondent to be deployed on board the
MSV Seaspread, which was scheduled to leave for Canada on February 13, 1998.
A week before the scheduled date of
departure, the respondent’s Vice President sent a message to the captain of MSV
Seaspread saying that the VP received a call from Santiago’s wife asking him
not to send her husband to MSV Seaspread and if he is allowed to depart he will
jump ship in Canada just like his brother.
On 9 February 1998, petitioner was thus
told that he would not be leaving for Canada anymore, but he was reassured that
he might be considered for deployment at some future date.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against respondent and its foreign principal.
On appeal by respondent, the NLRC ruled
that there is no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondent because under the POEA Standard Contract, the employment contract
shall commence upon actual departure of the seafarer from the airport or
seaport at the point of hire and with a POEA-approved contract. The CA agreed
with the NLRC’s finding that petitioner’s non-deployment was a valid exercise
of respondent’s management prerogative. It added that since petitioner had not
departed from the Port of Manila, no employer-employee relationship between the
parties arose and any claim for damages against the so-called employer could
have no leg to stand on.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employer-employee
relationship has already commenced
RULING:
There is no question that the parties
entered into an employment contract on February 3, 1998, whereby petitioner was
contracted by respondent to render services on board “MSV Seaspread” for 9
months. However, respondent failed to deploy petitioner from the port of Manila
to Canada. Considering that petitioner was not able to depart from the airport
or seaport in the point of hire, the employment contract did not commence, and
no employer-employee relationship was created between the parties.
However, a distinction must be made between
the perfection of the employment contract and the commencement of the
employer-employee relationship. The perfection of the contract, which in this
case coincided with the date of execution thereof, occurred when petitioner and
respondent agreed on the object and the cause, as well as the rest of the terms
and conditions therein. The commencement of the employer-employee relationship
would have taken place had petitioner been actually deployed from the point of
hire. Thus, 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. Thus, if the reverse had happened, that is the
seafarer failed or refused to be deployed as agreed upon, he would be liable
for damages.
Comments
Post a Comment