CIV PRO FULL.docx

8/9/2019 CIV PRO FULL.docx

1/27


2/27

-fter trial, the M'C found respondent Mon#on 4uilt% of fraud in obtainin4 an OC' over

petitioner;s propert%.2 It ordered her to reconve% the said propert% to petitioner, and to pa%

da!a4es and costs of suit.<

Respondents appealed to the Re4ional 'rial Court R'C/ of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet.

-fter 4oin4 over the M'C records and the parties; respective !e!oranda, the R'C of >a

'rinidad, ?en4uet, ?ranch &+, throu4h -ctin4 Presidin4 @ud4e 9ernando P. Cabato @ud4e

Cabato/, issued its October )), )++* Order ,&+ declarin4 the M'C (ithout Aurisdiction over

petitioner;s cause of action. It further held that it (ill ta$e co4ni#ance of the case pursuant to

Section 2, Rule :+ of the Rules of Court, (hich reads6

SEC'ION 2. -ppeal fro! orders dis!issin4 case (ithout trialB lac$ of Aurisdiction. " " "

If the case (as tried on the !erits b% the lo(er court (ithout Aurisdiction over the subAect !atter,

the Re4ional 'rial Court on appeal shall not dis!iss the case if it has ori4inal Aurisdiction thereof,

but shall decide the case in accordance (ith the precedin4 section, (ithout preAudice to the

ad!ission of a!ended pleadin4s and additional evidence in the interest of Austice. ?oth parties

ac$no(led4ed receipt of the October )), )++* Order,&& but neither presented additional evidence

before the ne( Aud4e, Ed4ardo ?. Dia# De Rivera, @r. @ud4e Dia# De Rivera/.&)

On Ma% :, )++:, @ud4e Dia# De Rivera issued a Resolution&* reversin4 the M'C Decision. 'he

fallo reads as follo(s6

78ERE9ORE, the @ud4!ent appealed fro! the Municipal 'rial Court of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet

is set aside. Petitioner is ordered to turn over the possession of the :,:&3 sFuare !eter land she

presentl% occupies to Mon#on. 'his case is re!anded to the court a Fuo for further proceedin4s

to deter!ine (hether Masla4 is entitled to the re!edies afforded b% la( to a builder in 4ood

faith for the i!prove!ents she constructed thereon.

No pronounce!ent as to da!a4es and costs.

SO ORDERED.&:

Petitioner filed a Notice of -ppeal&3 fro! the R'C;s Ma% :, )++: Resolution.

Petitioner assailed the R'C;s Ma% :, )++: Resolution for reversin4 the M'C;s factual findin4s&

and pra%ed that the M'C Decision be adopted. 8er pra%er before the C- reads6

78ERE9ORE, pre!ises considered, it is !ost respectfull% pra%ed that the decision of the

Re4ional 'rial Court, ?ranch &+ of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet, appealed fro! be reversed in toto and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt16


3/27

that the 8onorable Court adopt the decision of the Municipal 'rial Court. 9urther reliefs Aust and

eFuitable under the pre!ises are pra%ed for .&=

Respondents !oved to dis!iss petitioner;s ordinar% appeal for bein4 the i!proper re!ed%. 'he%

asserted that the proper !ode of appeal is a Petition for Revie( under Rule :) because the R'C

rendered its Ma% :, )++: Resolution in its appellate Aurisdiction.&2

Rulin4 of the Court of -ppeals

'he C- dis!issed petitioner;s appeal. It observed that the R'C;s Ma% :, )++: Resolution the

subAect !atter of the appeal before the C-/ set aside an M'C @ud4!entB hence, the proper

re!ed% is a Petition for Revie( under Rule :), and not an ordinar% appeal.&<

Petitioner sou4ht reconsideration.)+ She ar4ued, for the first ti!e, that the R'C rendered its Ma%

:, )++: Resolution in its ori4inal Aurisdiction. She cited the earlier October )), )++* Order of the

R'C declarin4 the M'C (ithout Aurisdiction over the case.

'he C- denied petitioner;s Motion for Reconsideration in its Septe!ber )), )++ Resolution6)&

- perusal of the Ma% :, )++: Resolution of the R'C, (hich is the subAect !atter of the appeal,

clearl% reveals that it too$ co4ni#ance of the M'C case in the e"ercise of its appellate

Aurisdiction. ConseFuentl%, as 7e have previousl% enunciated, the proper re!ed%, is a petition for

revie( under Rule :) and not an ordinar% appeal under Rule :&.

78ERE9ORE, pre!ises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 'he

Ma% *&, )++ Resolution of this Court is hereb% -99IRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.))

8ence this Petition (herein petitioner pra%s that the C- be ordered to ta$e co4ni#ance of her

appeal.)*

Issues

Petitioner set forth the follo(in4 issues in her Petition6

78E'8ER G G G '8E COHR' O9 -PPE->S 7-S CORREC' IN DISMISSIN1 '8E

-PPE-> 9I>ED ? '8E PE'I'IONER, CONSIDERIN1 '8-' '8E RE1ION-> 'RI->

COHR', ?R-NC8 &+ O9 >- 'RINID-D, ?EN1HE' 8E>D '8-' '8E ORI1IN->

COMP>-IN' -S 9I>ED ?E9ORE '8E MHNICIP-> 'RI-> COHR' O9 >- 'RINID-D,

?EN1HE' 7-S DECIDED ? '8E >-''ER 7I'8OH' -N @HRISDIC'ION -ND, IN

ORDERIN1 '8-' '8E C-SE S8->> ?E DECIDED PHRSH-N' 'O '8E PROVISION O9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt23


4/27

SEC'ION 2 O9 RH>E :+ O9 '8E RH>ES O9 COHR', I' DECIDED '8E C-SE NO' ON

I'S -PPE>>-'E @HRISDIC'ION ?H' ON I'S ORI1IN-> @HRISDIC'ION 78-' 7I>>

?E '8E E99EC' O9 '8E DECISION O9 '8E RE1ION-> 'RI-> COHR', ?R-NC8 &+

O9 >- 'RINID-D, ?EN1HE', 78EN I' DECIDED - C-SE -PPE->ED ?E9ORE I'

HNDER '8E PROVISION O9 SEC'ION 2, RH>E :+ O9 '8E RH>ES O9 COHR' O9 '8E

P8I>IPPINES, -S 'O '8E COHRSE O9 REMED '8-' M- ?E -V-I>ED O9 ? '8E

PE'I'IONER - PE'I'ION 9OR REVIE7HNDER RH>E :) OR -N ORDIN-R -PPE->

HNDER RH>E :&.):

Our Rulin4

In its October )), )++* Order, the R'C declared that the M'C has no Aurisdiction over the

subAect !atter of the case based on the supposition that the sa!e is incapable of pecuniar%

esti!ation. 'hus, follo(in4 Section 2, Rule :+ of the Rules of Court, it too$ co4ni#ance of the

case and directed the parties to adduce further evidence if the% so desire. 'he parties bo(ed to

this rulin4 of the R'C and, eventuall%, sub!itted the case for its decision after the% had

sub!itted their respective !e!oranda.

7e cannot, ho(ever, 4loss over this Aurisdictional fau" pas of the R'C. Since it involves a

Fuestion of Aurisdiction, (e !a% !otu proprio revie( and pass upon the sa!e even at this late

sta4e of the proceedin4s.)3

In her Co!plaint) for reconve%ance of real propert% (ith declaration of nullit% of OC',

petitioner clai!ed that she and her father had been in open, continuous, notorious and e"clusive

possession of the disputed propert% since the &


5/27

bad faith o!itted. 'hus, the title to the propert%, to the e"tent of &2,)IJ-?E'8 MONJON.

-s a relief, petitioner pra%ed that Mon#on be ordered to reconve% the portion of the propert%

(hich she clai!ed (as fraudulentl% included in Mon#on;s title. 8er pri!ar% relief (as to

recover o(nership of real propert%. Indubitabl%, petitioner;s co!plaint involves title to real

propert%. -n action involvin4 title to real propert%, on the other hand, (as defined as an action

(here the plaintiff;s cause of action is based on a clai! that she o(ns such propert% or that she

has the le4al ri4hts to have e"clusive control, possession, enAo%!ent, or disposition of the

sa!e.)=

Hnder the present state of the la(, in cases involvin4 title to real propert%, ori4inal and e"clusive

Aurisdiction belon4s to either the R'C or the M'C, dependin4 on the assessed value of the

subAect propert%.)2 Pertinent provisions of ?atas Pa!bansa ?l4. ?P/ &)


6/27

In the case at bench, anne"ed to the Co!plaint is a Declaration of Real Propert%*& dated

Nove!ber &), &a

'rinidad ?en4uet*3

and then proceeded to discuss the !erits of the appeal. In the dispositive portion of said Resolution, he reversed the M'C;s findin4s and conclusions and re!anded

residual issues for trial (ith the M'C. 'hus, in fact and in la(, the R'C Resolution (as a

continuation of the proceedin4s that ori4inated fro! the M'C. It (as a Aud4!ent issued b% the

R'C in the e"ercise of its appellate Aurisdiction. 7ith re4ard to the R'C;s earlier October )),

)++* Order, the sa!e should be disre4arded for it produces no effect other than to confuse the

parties (hether the R'C (as invested (ith ori4inal or appellate Aurisdiction/. It cannot be

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_174908_2013.html#fnt35


7/27

overe!phasi#ed that Aurisdiction over the subAect !atter is conferred onl% b% la( and it is not

(ithin the courts, let alone the parties, to the!selves deter!ine or convenientl% set aside. *=

Neither (ould the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to confer ori4inal and

e"clusive Aurisdiction (here the court or tribunal onl% (ields appellate Aurisdiction over the

case.*2 'hus, the C- is correct in holdin4 that the proper !ode of appeal should have been a

Petition for Revie( under Rule :) of the Rules of Court, and not an ordinar% appeal under Rule

:&.

Seein4 the futilit% of ar4uin4 a4ainst (hat the R'C actuall% did, petitioner resorts to ar4uin4 for

(hat the R'C should have done. She !aintains that the R'C should have issued its Ma% :, )++:

Resolution in its ori4inal Aurisdiction because it had earlier ruled that the M'C had no

Aurisdiction over the cause of action.

Petitioner;s ar4u!ent lac$s !erit. 'o reiterate, onl% statutes can confer Aurisdiction. Court

issuances cannot sei#e or appropriate Aurisdiction. It has been repeatedl% held that an% Aud4!ent,

order or resolution issued (ithout Aurisdiction is void and cannot be 4iven an% effect.*


8/27

D E C I S I O N

!RION, J.:

?efore us is the petition for revie( on certiorari,& filed b% 7ilson 1o under Rule :3 of the Rules

of Court, assailin4 the resolutions dated Ma% :, )+&+) and October &), )+&&* of the Court of-ppeals C-/ in C-01.R. SP No. &&&2++. 'he C- denied 1o5s petition for revie( for havin4

been filed out of ti!e.

'he -ntecedent 9acts

?PI 9inance Corporation ?PI/, operatin4 under the na!e ?PI E"press Credit Card, has been

en4a4ed in the business of e"tendin4 credit acco!!odations throu4h the use of credit cards.

Hnder the s%ste!, ?PI a4rees to e"tend credit acco!!odations to its cardholders for the

purchase of 4oods and services fro! ?PI;s !e!ber establish!ents on the condition that the

char4es incurred shall be rei!bursed b% the cardholders to ?PI upon proper billin4. :

?PI filed a co!plaint for collection of su! of !one% before the Metropolitan 'rial Court

Me'C/, ?ranch =, Ma$ati Cit%, a4ainst 1o. 'he co!plaint alle4ed that 1o (as a!on4 the

cardholders of ?PI (hen he (as the E"ecutive Vice0President of Noah;s -r$ Merchandisin4 and

that 1o incurred credit char4es a!ountin4 to P==,


9/27

it (as a co!pan% accountB and that althou4h the state!ents of account (ere not disputed, he

alle4ed that he did not receive an% de!and letter fro! ?PI.2

1o failed to present an% evidence durin4 the hearin4. -s a result, the Me'C declared that he had

(aived his ri4ht to present evidence. 9or this reason, the court dee!ed the case sub!itted for

decision.<

On -pril )*, )++2, the Me'C rendered a decision&+ (hose dispositive portion reads6

78ERE9ORE, the Court RENDERS Aud4!ent holdin4 the defendant 7ilson '. 1o liable to pa%

plaintiff ?PI Card 9inance Corporation the follo(in4 a!ounts6

&. P==,


10/27

1o filed a !otion for reconsideration (hich the C- also denied in a Resolution dated October

&), )+&&. 'he C- e"plained that (hile the !otion for e"tension of ti!e (as 4ranted, onl% a

period of fifteen &3/ da%s (as 4iven, not the reFuested thirt% *+/ da%s. 8ence, the last period to

file the petition for revie( should have been on Dece!ber )3, )++


11/27

that no favorable action had ta$en place and the !otion had been denied. It is thus i!!aterial

that the resolution 4rantin4 the e"tension of ti!e (as onl% issued four !onths later, althou4h

such late action is a response (e cannot approve of. In an% case, the late response cannot be used

as an e"cuse to dela% the filin4 of its pleadin4 as a part% cannot !a$e an% assu!ption on ho( his

!otion (ould be resolved. Precisel%, a !otion is sub!itted to the court for resolution and (e

cannot allo( an% assu!ption that it (ould be 4ranted.

'he ri4ht to appeal is a statutor% ri4ht, not a natural nor a constitutional ri4ht. 'he part% (ho

intends to appeal !ust co!pl% (ith the procedures and rules 4overnin4 appealsB other(ise, the

ri4ht of appeal !a% be lost or sFuandered.&3 Contrar% to 1o;s assertion, his appeal (as not denied

on a !ere technicalit%. 'he perfection of an appeal in the !anner and (ithin the period

per!itted b% la( is not onl% !andator%, but Aurisdictional, and the failure to perfect that appeal

renders the Aud4!ent of the court final and e"ecutor%.&

In >acsa!ana v. I-C,&= the Court laid do(n the no( established polic% on e"tensions of ti!e in

order to prevent the abuse of this recourse. 'he Court said6

?e4innin4 one !onth after the pro!ul4ation of this Decision, an e"tension of onl% fifteen da%s

for filin4 a petition for revie( !a% be 4ranted b% the Court of -ppeals, save in e"ceptionall%

!eritorious cases.

'he !otion for e"tension of ti!e !ust be filed and the correspondin4 doc$et fee paid (ithin the

re4le!entar% period of appeal.&2 italics suppliedB e!phasis and underscore ours/

7e si!ilarl% ruled in Video 4ra! Re4ulator% ?oard v. Court of -ppeals &


12/27

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 18)47( June 2), 2013

POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SER*ICES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.TITO R. TAMALA, 'ELIPE S. SAURIN, JR., ARTEMIO A. !O+OC $n% JOEL S.

'ERNANDE, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

!RION, J.:

7e resolve in this petition for revie( on certiorari& the challen4e to the Septe!ber *+, )++2Decision) and the 9ebruar% &&, )++RC, in turn, affir!ed in toto the Ma% )++ Decision3 of the labor arbiter >-/ dis!issin4the co!plaint for ille4al ter!ination of e!plo%!ent filed b% respondents 'ito R. 'a!ala, 9elipeS. Saurin, @r., -rte!io -. ?o0oc and @oel S. 9ernande# a4ainst petitioner Poseidon InternationalMariti!e Services, Inc. Poseidon/, and its principal, Van Doorn 9ishin4 Pt%, >td. Van Doorn/.

'he 9actual -ntecedents

In )++:, Poseidon hired the respondents, in behalf of Van Doorn, to !an the fishin4 vessels ofVan Doorn and those of its partners Din$o 'una 9ar!ers Pt%. >td. Din$o/ and SnappertunaCv. >da. Snappertuna/ 0 at the coastal and offshore area of Cape Verde Islands. 'he respondents;

contractin4 dates, positions, vessel assi4n!ents, duration of the contract, basic !onthl% salaries,4uaranteed overti!e pa% and vacation leave pa%, as reflected in their approved contracts, aresu!!ari#ed belo(6

-rte!io -.?o0oc

@oel S.9ernande#

9elipe S.Saurin, @r.

'ito R.'a!ala

DateContracted

@une &, )++: @une ):, )++: @ul% &u$oranDV-

MV >u$oranDV-

MV >u$oranCetriri

MV>u$oran

DV-

ContractDuration

'(elve &)/!onths

'(elve &)/!onths

'(elve &)/!onths

'(elve &)/!onths

?asic

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt7


13/27

Monthl%Salar%

HS2++.++ HS&,&)+.++ HS2++.++ HS)2+.++

1uaranteedOverti!e

Pa%

HS):+.++!o HS**.++!o HS):+.++!o HS2:.++!o

Vacation>eave Pa%

HS. HS


14/27

In their position paper,&: Poseidon and Van Doorn ar4ued that the respondents had no cause ofaction to collect the re!ainin4 3+ of their unpaid (a4es. 'o Poseidon and Van Doorn, therespondents; voluntar% and $no(in4 a4ree!ent to the settle!ent pa%, (hich the% confir!ed(hen the% si4ned the (aivers and Fuitclai!s, no( effectivel% bars their clai!. Poseidon and VanDoorn sub!itted before the >- the si4ned letter of acceptance, the (aiver and Fuitclai!, and the

cash vouchers to support their stance.

In a Decision&3 dated Ma% )++, the >- dis!issed the respondents; co!plaint for lac$ of !erit,declarin4 as valid and bindin4 their (aivers and Fuitclai!s. 'he >- e"plained that (hileFuitclai!s e"ecuted b% e!plo%ees are 4enerall% fro(ned upon and do not bar the! fro!recoverin4 the full !easure of (hat is le4all% due, e"cepted fro! this rule are the (aivers$no(in4l% and voluntaril% a4reed to b% the e!plo%ees, such as the (aivers assailed b% therespondents. Citin4 Aurisprudence, the >- added that the courts should respect, as the la( bet(een the parties, those le4iti!ate (aivers and Fuitclai!s that represent voluntar% andreasonable settle!ent of e!plo%ees; clai!s. In the respondents; case, this pronounce!ent holds!ore (ei4ht, as the% understood full% (ell the contents of their (aivers and $ne( the

conseFuences of their acts.

'he >- did not 4ive probative (ei4ht to the Ma% )3, )++3 a4ree!ent considerin4 that theentities (hich contracted the respondents; services 0 Poseidon and Van Doorn did not activel% participate. Moreover, the >- noted that the respondents; si4ned letter of acceptance supersededthis a4ree!ent. 'he >- li$e(ise considered the respondents; belated filin4 of the co!plaint as a!ere afterthou4ht.

9inall%, the >- dis!issed the issue of ille4al dis!issal, notin4 that the respondents alread%abandoned this issue in their pleadin4s. 'he respondents appealed& the >-;s decision before the N>RC.

'he Rulin4 of the N>RC

?% Resolution&= dated Dece!ber )RC affir!ed in toto the >-;s decision. -s the>- did, the N>RC ruled that the respondents; $no(in4 and voluntar% acFuiescence to thesettle!ent and their acceptance of the pa%!ents !ade bind the! and effectivel% bar their clai!s.'he N>RC also re4arded the a!ounts the respondents received as settle!ent pa% to bereasonableB despite the cessation of the fishin4 operations, the respondents (ere still paid theirfull (a4es fro! Dece!ber )++: to @anuar% )++3 and 3+ of their (a4es fro! 9ebruar% )++3until their repatriation in Ma% )++3.

On 9ebruar% &), )++=, the N>RC denied

&2

the respondents; !otion for reconsideration,

&<

pro!ptin4 the! to file (ith the C- a petition for certiorari)+ under Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

'he Rulin4 of the C-

In its Septe!ber *+, )++2 Decision,)& the C- 4ranted the respondents; petition and orderedPoseidon and Van Doorn to pa% the respondents the a!ounts tabulated belo(, representin4 the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt21


15/27

difference bet(een the a!ounts the% (ere entitled to receive under the Ma% )3, )++3 a4ree!entand the a!ounts that the% received as settle!ent pa%6

-rte!io -. ?o0oc HS*,=+3.++

@oel S. 9ernande# HS:,**.3=

9elipe S. Saurin, @r. HS:,++2.)

'ito R. 'a!ala HS:,:3:.)+

In settin4 aside the N>RC;s rulin4, the C- considered the (aivers and Fuitclai!s invalid andhi4hl% suspicious. 'he C- noted that the respondents in fact Fuestioned in their pleadin4s theletter;s due e"ecution. In contrast (ith the N>RC, the C- observed that the respondents (erecoerced and undul% influenced into acceptin4 the 3+ settle!ent pa% and into si4nin4 the(aivers and Fuitclai!s because of their financial distress. 'he C- !oreover considered thea!ounts stated in the Ma% )3, )++3 a4ree!ent (ith 1oran to be !ore reasonable and in $eepin4

(ith Section &+ of Republic -ct R.-./ No. 2+:) or the Mi4rant 7or$ers and Overseas 9ilipinos-ct of &RC and the C-. It clai!s that the respondents,in assailin4 the N>RC rulin4 before the C-, !ainl% Fuestioned the validit% of the (aivers andFuitclai!s the% si4ned and their bindin4 effect on the!. 7hile the respondents raised the issue of ille4al dis!issal before the >-, the% eventuall% abandoned it in their pleadin4s a !atter the >-

even pointed out in her Ma% )++ Decision.

Poseidon further ar4ues that the N>RC did not e"ceed its Aurisdiction nor 4ravel% abuse itsdiscretion in decidin4 the case in its favor, pointin4 out that the respondents raised issues pertainin4 to !ere errors of Aud4!ent before the C-. 'hus, as !atters stood, these issues did notcall for the 4rant of a (rit of certiorari as this prero4ative (rit is li!ited to the correction oferrors of Aurisdiction co!!itted throu4h 4rave abuse of discretion, not errors of Aud4!ent.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt23


16/27

9inall%, Poseidon !aintains that it did not ille4all% dis!iss the respondents. 8i4hli4htin4 theC-;s observation and the respondents; o(n ad!ission in their various pleadin4s, Poseidonreiterates that it si!pl% ceased its fishin4 operations as a business decision in the e"ercise of its!ana4e!ent prero4ative.

'he Case for the Respondents

'he respondents point out in their co!!ent): that the petition raises Fuestions of fact, (hich arenot proper for a Rule :3 petition. 'he% li$e(ise point out that the petition did not specificall% setforth the 4rounds as reFuired under Rule :3 of the Rules of Court. On the !erits, and rel%in4 onthe C- rulin4, the respondents ar4ue that Poseidon dis!issed the! (ithout a valid cause and(ithout the observance of due process.

'he Issues

-t the core of this case are the validit% of the respondents; (aivers and Fuitclai!s and the issue

of (hether these should bar their clai! for unpaid salaries. -t the co!pletel% le4al end is theFuestion of (hether Section &+ of R.-. No. 2+:) applies to the respondents; clai!.

'he Court;s Rulin4

7e resolve to partl% 1R-N' the petition.

Preli!inar% considerations

'he settled rule is that a petition for revie( on certiorari under Rule :3 is li!ited to the revie( of Fuestions of la(,)3 i.e., to le4al errors that the C- !a% have co!!itted in its decision,) in

contrast (ith the revie( for Aurisdictional errors that (e underta$e in ori4inal certiorari actionsunder Rule 3.)= In revie(in4 the le4al correctness of a C- decision rendered under Rule 3 ofthe Rules of Court, (e e"a!ine the C- decision fro! the pris! of (hether it correctl%deter!ined the presence or absence of 4rave abuse of discretion in the N>RC decision before it,and not strictl% on the basis of (hether the N>RC decision under revie( is intrinsicall% correct.)2

In other (ords, (e have to be $eenl% a(are that the C- undertoo$ a Rule 3 revie(, not a revie(on appeal, of the N>RC decision challen4ed before it.)<

Vie(ed in this li4ht, (e do not re0e"a!ine the factual findin4s of the N>RC and the C-, nor do(e substitute our o(n Aud4!ent for theirs,*+ as their findin4s of fact are 4enerall% conclusive onthis Court. 7e cannot touch on factual Fuestions e"cept in the course of deter!inin4 (hether

the C- correctl% ruled in deter!inin4 (hether or not the N>RC co!!itted 4rave abuse ofdiscretion in considerin4 and appreciatin4 the factual issues before it.*&

On the Merits of the Case

'he core issue decided b% the tribunals belo( is the validit% of the respondents; (aivers andFuitclai!s. 'he C- set aside the N>RC rulin4 for 4rave abuse of discretionB the C- essentiall%found the (aivers and Fuitclai!s unreasonable and involuntaril% e"ecuted, and could not have

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt31


17/27

superseded the Ma% )3, )++3 a4ree!ent. In doin4 so, and in 4ivin4 (ei4ht to the Ma% )3, )++3a4ree!ent, the C- found Austification under Section &+ of R.-. No. 2+:).

'he respondents are not entitled tothe unpaid portion of their salaries

under Section &+ of R.-. No. 2+:)

'he application of Section &+ of R.-. No. 2+:) presu!es a findin4 of ille4al dis!issal. 'he pertinent portion of Section &+ of R.-. No. 2+:) reads6

SEC. &+. MONE C>-IMS. " " "

" " " "

In case of ter!ination of overseas e!plo%!ent (ithout Aust, valid or authori#ed cause as defined b% la( or contract. e!phasis and italics ours

- plain readin4 of this provision readil% sho(s that it applies onl% to cases of ille4al dis!issal ordis!issal (ithout an% Aust, authori#ed or valid cause and finds no application in cases (here theoverseas 9ilipino (or$er (as not ille4all% dis!issed.*) 7e found the occasion to appl% this rulein International Mana4e!ent Services v. >o4arta,** (here (e held that Section &+ of R.-. No.2+:) applies onl% to an ille4all% dis!issed overseas contract (or$er or a (or$er dis!issed fro!overseas e!plo%!ent (ithout Aust, valid or authori#ed cause.*:

7hether the respondents in the present case (ere ille4all% dis!issed is a Fuestion (e resolve inthe ne4ative for three reasons.

9irst, the respondents; references to ille4al dis!issal in their several pleadin4s (ere !ere cursor%declarations rather than a definitive de!and for redress. 'he >-;s Ma% )++ Decision clearl%enunciated this point (hen she dis!issed the respondents; clai! of ille4al dis!issal asco!plainants the!selves have lost interest to pursue the sa!e.*3

Second, the respondents, in their !otion for reconsideration filed before the N>RC, positivel%ar4ued that the fishin4 operations for (hich the% (ere hired ceased as a result of the businessdecision of Van Doorn and of its partnersB* thus, ne4atin4 b% o!ission an% clai! for ille4aldis!issal.

'hird, the C-, in its assailed decision, li$e(ise !ade the ver% sa!e inference that the fishin4

operations ceased as a result of a business decision of Van Doorn and of its partners. In other(ords, the !anner of dis!issal (as not a contested issueB the records clearl% sho(ed that therespondents; e!plo%!ent (as ter!inated because Van Doorn and its partners si!pl% decided tostop their fishin4 operations in the e"ercise of their !ana4e!ent prero4ative, (hich prero4ativeeven our labor la(s reco4ni#e.

7e confir! in this re4ard that, b% la( and subAect to the State;s corollar% ri4ht to revie( itsdeter!ination,*= !ana4e!ent has the ri4ht to re4ulate the business and control its ever% aspect. *2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt38


18/27

Included in this !ana4e!ent ri4ht is the freedo! to close or cease its operations for an% reason,as lon4 as it is done in 4ood faith and the e!plo%er faithfull% co!plies (ith the substantive and procedural reFuire!ents laid do(n b% la( and Aurisprudence.*abor Code provides6

-rt. )2*. Closure of establish!ent and reduction of personnel. 0 'he e!plo%er !a% alsoter!inate the e!plo%!ent of an% e!plo%ee due to the installation of labor0savin4 devices,redundanc%, retrench!ent to prevent losses or the closin4 or cessation of operation of theestablish!ent or underta$in4 unless the closin4 is for the purpose of circu!ventin4 the provisions of this 'itle, b% servin4 a (ritten notice on the (or$ers and the Depart!ent of >aborand E!plo%!ent at least one &/ !onth before the intended date thereof. " " " In case ofretrench!ent to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations ofestablish!ent or underta$in4 not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, theseparation pa% shall be eFuivalent to one &/ !onth pa% or at least one0half &)/ !onth pa% forever% %ear of service, (hichever is hi4her. - fraction of at least si" / !onths shall beconsidered as one &/ (hole %ear. Italics, underscores and e!phases ours

'his provision applies in the present case as under the contract the e!plo%er and the (or$erssi4ned and sub!itted to the Philippine Overseas E!plo%!ent -4enc% POE-/, the Philippinelabor la( e"pressl% applies.

'his le4al realit% is reiterated under Section &20?, para4raph ),:+ in relation (ith Section )*:& ofthe POE- Standard E!plo%!ent Contract POE-0SEC/ (hich is dee!ed (ritten into ever%overseas e!plo%!ent contract/ (hich reco4ni#es the validit% of the cessation of the businessoperations as a valid 4round for the ter!ination of an overseas e!plo%!ent. 'his reco4nition issubAect to co!pliance (ith the follo(in4 reFuisites6

&. 'he decision to close or cease operations !ust be bona fide in characterB

). Service of (ritten notice on the affected e!plo%ees and on the Depart!ent of >aborand E!plo%!ent DO>E/ at least one &/ !onth prior to the effectivit% of theter!inationB and

*. Pa%!ent to the affected e!plo%ees of ter!ination or separation pa% eFuivalent to one&/ !onth pa% or at least one0half &)/ !onth pa% for ever% %ear of service, (hichever ishi4her.:)

7e are sufficientl% convinced, based on the records, that Van Doorn;s ter!ination of the

respondents; e!plo%!ent arisin4 fro! the cessation of its fishin4 operations co!plied (ith theabove reFuisites and is thus valid.

7e observe that the records of the case do not sho( that Van Doorn ever intended to defeat therespondents; ri4hts under our labor la(s (hen it undertoo$ its decision to close its fishin4operations on Nove!ber )+, )++:. 9ro! this date until si" !onths after, the underta$in4 (as at aco!plete halt. 'hat Van Doorn and its partners !i4ht have suffered losses durin4 the si"0!onth period is not entirel% re!ote. et, Van Doorn did not i!!ediatel% repatriate the respondents or

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt42


19/27

hire another 4roup of seafarers to replace the respondents in a !ove to resu!e its fishin4operations. uite the opposite, the respondents, althou4h the% (ere no lon4er renderin4 an%service or doin4 an% (or$, still received their full salar% for Nove!ber )++: up to @anuar% )++3.In fact, fro! 9ebruar% )++3 until the% (ere repatriated to the Philippines in Ma% )++3, therespondents still received (a4es, albeit half of their respective basic !onthl% salar% rate. 8ad

Van Doorn intended to stop its fishin4 operations si!pl% to ter!inate the respondents;e!plo%!ent, it (ould have i!!ediatel% repatriated the respondents to the Philippines soon after,in order that it !a% hire other seafarers to replace the! a possibilit% that did not ta$e place.

Considerin4 therefore the absence of an% indication that Van Doorn stopped its fishin4 operationsto circu!vent the protected ri4hts of the respondents, our courts have no basis to Fuestion thereason that !i4ht have i!pelled Van Doorn to reach its closure decision.:*

In su!, since Poseidon ceased its fishin4 operations in the valid e"ercise of its !ana4e!ent prero4ative, Section &+ of R.-. No. 2+:) finds no application. ConseFuentl%, (e find that the C-erroneousl% i!puted 4rave abuse of discretion on the part of the N>RC in not appl%in4 Section

&+ of R.-. No. 2+:) and in a(ardin4 the respondents the unpaid portion of their full salaries.

'he (aivers and Fuitclai!s si4ned b%the respondents are valid and bindin4

7e cannot support the C-;s act of 4ivin4 4reater evidentiar% (ei4ht to the Ma% )3, )++3a4ree!ent over the respondents; (aivers and Fuitclai!sB not onl% do (e find the latterdocu!ents to be reasonable and dul% e"ecuted, (e also find that the% superseded the Ma% )3,)++3 a4ree!ent.

1enerall%, this Court loo$s (ith disfavor at Fuitclai!s e"ecuted b% e!plo%ees for bein4 contrar%to public polic%.:: 7here the person !a$in4 the (aiver, ho(ever, has done so voluntaril%, (ith afull understandin4 of its ter!s and (ith the pa%!ent of credible and reasonable consideration,(e have no option but to reco4ni#e the transaction to be valid and bindin4.:3

7e find the reFuisites for the validit% of the respondents; Fuitclai! present in this case. 7e basethis conclusion on the follo(in4 observations6

9irst, the respondents ac$no(led4ed in their various pleadin4s, as (ell as in the ver% docu!entdeno!inated as (aiver and Fuitclai!, that the% voluntaril% si4ned the docu!ent after receivin4the a4reed settle!ent pa%.

Second, the settle!ent pa% is reasonable under the circu!stances, especiall% (hen contrasted(ith the a!ounts to (hich the% (ere respectivel% entitled to receive as ter!ination pa% pursuantto Section )* of the POE-0SEC and -rticle )2* of the >abor Code. 'he co!parison of thesea!ounts is tabulated belo(6

1âwphi1

Settle!ent Pa% 'er!ination Pa%

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186475_2013.html#fnt45


20/27


21/27

-s a final note, (e observe that (hile Van Doorn has a Aust and valid cause to ter!inate therespondents; e!plo%!ent, it failed to !eet the reFuisite procedural safe4uards provided under-rticle )2* of the >abor Code. In the ter!ination of e!plo%!ent under -rticle )2*, Van Doorn,as the e!plo%er, is reFuired to serve a (ritten notice to the respondents and to the DO>E of theintended ter!ination of e!plo%!ent at least one !onth prior to the cessation of its fishin4

operations. Poseidon could have easil% filed this notice, in the (a% it represented Van Doorn inits dealin4s in the Philippines. 7hile this o!ission does not affect the validit% of the ter!inationof e!plo%!ent, it subAects the e!plo%er to the pa%!ent of inde!nit% in the for! of no!inalda!a4es.:2

Consistent (ith our rulin4 in @a$a 9ood Processin4 Corporation v. Pacot,:


22/27

Shippin4 S- >iberia collectivel%, petitioners/. 8e (as to receive HS3++.++ plus other benefits.

8e had t(o earlier contracts (ith the petitioners fro! @anuar% )3, &abor -rbiter >-/ Eduardo @.Carpio dis!issed the

co!plaint, principall% on the 4round that Na#al failed to co!pl% (ith the !andator% reportin4

reFuire!ent under his standard e!plo%!ent contract. >- Carpio 4ave no credence to Na#al;s

clai! that he reported to Colorado, as there (as no proof presented in this respect. >- Carpio

pointed out that (hile Na#al !i4ht have been co!plainin4 about his health condition (hile on

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt6


23/27

board the vessel, there (as no evidence sho(in4 that he reported his ail!ents to the vessel;s

authorities.

Na#al appealed fro! >- Carpio;s decision. On Septe!ber )+, )++3, the National >abor

Relations Co!!ission N>RC/ rendered a decision= in Na#al;s favor. It set aside >- Carpio;s

rulin4 and a(arded Na#al HS&+,+=3.++ as partial disabilit% benefit, plus 3 attorne%;s fees.

'he N>RC declared that contrar% to >- Carpio;s conclusion, Na#al presented substantial proof

that his ail!ents had been contracted durin4 his e!plo%!ent (ith the petitioners. 'he N>RC

relied on Dr. Vicaldo;s disabilit% ratin4 of 1rade G )+.&3/ pursuant to the POE-0SEC.

?oth parties !oved for partial reconsideration. 9or his part, Na#al pleaded (ith the N>RC that

he be 4ranted per!anent total disabilit% benefits as he (ould not be able to resu!e his

e!plo%!ent as a sea!an an%!ore. On the other hand, the a4enc% insisted that laches barred

Na#al;s clai!, but in an% event, he failed to co!pl% (ith the !andator% post0e!plo%!ent

reportin4 reFuire!ent under the POE-0SEC.2 9urther, it stressed that a hi4her de4ree of proof

should have been reFuired b% the N>RC because of the bad4es of suspicionfraud apparent in the

case. It e"plained in this re4ard that Na#al sub!itted proof that he had ta$en another overseas

e!plo%!ent after he dise!bar$ed fro! the vessel MV Rover.

?% a resolution dated Nove!ber *+, )++3,RC denied both !otions, stressin4 that the%

(ere based on the sa!e ar4u!ents presented to the >-. 'he a4enc% filed an ur4ent !otion for

reconsideration on 4rounds of ne(l%0discovered evidence and pendin4 !otionsincidents. It

ar4ued that the ne( evidence sho(ed that Na#al had entered into another overseas contract after

his stint (ith the petitioners for (hich reason, his disabilit% could not have been due to his (or$

on board the vessel MV Rover.

'he N>RC denied the !otion in its resolution&+ of October *&, )++, declarin4 as superfluous

and i!!aterial the clai!ed ne(l%0discovered evidence. It e!phasi#ed that Na#al;s subseFuent

vo%a4e did not prove that he had not been sic$ or that his sic$ness had not been a44ravated b%

his (or$ on board the vessel MV Rover. 'hereafter, the a4enc% elevated the case to the C-

throu4h a petition for certiorari under Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

'he C- Decision

'he C- dis!issed the petition outri4ht for havin4 been filed out of ti!e.&&

It pointed out that theassailed N>RC resolution of October *&, )++ the subAect of the petition is a rulin4 on the

a4enc%;s ur4ent !otion for reconsideration of the N>RC resolution dated Nove!ber *+, )++3

(hich, in turn, denied the a4enc%;s !otion for reconsideration of the N>RC decision of

Septe!ber *+, )++3. 'he second !otion for reconsideration filed b% the sa!e part%, the C-

declared, is e"pressl% prohibited b% Section ), Rule 3) of the Rules of Court. 'he a4enc% !oved

for reconsideration, but the C- denied the !otion.&)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt12


24/27

'he Petition

'he a4enc% no( as$s the Court to set aside the C- resolutions, contendin4 that the appellate

court co!!itted an error of la( and 4ravel% abused its discretion in holdin4 that it filed a

prohibited second !otion for reconsideration (ith the N>RC. It ar4ues that the t(o !otions

alluded to dealt (ith different subAect !attersB the first one dated Nove!ber &&, )++3/ dealt (ith

the !erits of the case (hile the second one dated March )&, )++/ (as based on ne(l%0

discovered evidence.

'he N>RC denied the a4enc%;s ur4ent !otion for reconsideration in its resolution of October *&,

)++, cop% of (hich the a4enc% alle4edl% received on Nove!ber &3, )++.&* It !aintains that it

had until @anuar% &+, )++= to file the petition for certiorari (hich it did on ti!e, or on Dece!ber

&&, )++.

'he a4enc% be(ails the C-;s resort to technicalities to th(art substantial Austice, insistin4 that

it has proven the !erits of its case. It sub!its that Na#al;s clai! !a% even be fraudulent

considerin4 that he filed it after he dise!bar$ed fro! the vessel MV Rover and, subseFuentl%,

obtained e!plo%!ent (ith another vessel and $ept silent about it. It ar4ues that the fact that

Na#al (as able to secure a subseFuent postin4 sho(s that he (as fit and able (hen he left his

e!plo%!ent (ith the petitioners. In an% event, it adds that Na#al is disFualified fro! clai!in4

disabilit% benefits because of his failure to co!pl% (ith the !andator% post0e!plo%!ent !edical

e"a!ination under the POE-0SEC.

'he Case for Na#al and Related Incidents

On @ul% :, )++=, the Court reFuired Na#al to co!!ent on the petition.&: Instead of filin4 his

co!!ent, ho(ever, Na#al petitioned&3 the C- to convert his disabilit% to per!anent total

disabilit% 1.R. No. SP No. &+:):/. 'his pro!pted the petitioners to file a !otion for leave to

file !anifestation and ad!ission of !anifestation& in relation (ith the petition for conversion.

'he petitioners sub!itted a brief chronolo4% of events sho(in4 that Na#al appeared to be foru!

shoppin4 (ith the filin4 of the petition (ith the C-, subseFuent to the filin4 of the present case.

'he C-, for its part, pro!ptl% dis!issed the petition.

?% a Resolution dated @une )), )++


25/27

RODCO provided Na#al (ith a la(%er under contract (ith the fir! for one %ear in the

person of -tt%. Oliver C. Castro. -tt%. Castro;s contract (ith RODCO e"pired on 9ebruar% &*,

)++3, pro!ptin4 hi! to (ithdra( as Na#al;s counselB RODCO then sent -tt%s. Constantino

Re%es and Rodri4o Ceni#a to represent Na#al. 'he% (ere also under contract (ith RODCO and

their sevices (ere ter!inated as of @ul% )++=, around (hich ti!e, the partial disabilit% a(ard to

Na#al (as enforced,&RC of the 4arnished a!ount.)&

Na#al contends in the sa!e co!!ent that he is entitled not onl% to partial disabilit% benefits but

to per!anent total disabilit% co!pensation since he had alread% lost the capacit% to earn a livin4.

'his is the reason, he tells the Court, (h% even (ithout a counsel, he petitioned the C- for the

conversion of his disabilit% to per!anent total disabilit%. 8e sub!its that his receipt of the

a!ount of P:2:,+:.*&, correspondin4 to the a(ard of partial disabilit% benefits, does not bar

hi! fro! de!andin4 (hat is le4all% due hi! and that it cannot be considered as foru! shoppin4.

In a Resolution dated -u4ust &=, )++RC Revised Rules of Procedure.)2 'he a4enc% ta$es

e"ception to the C- rulin4, reiteratin4 its position that the t(o !otions dealt (ith t(o differentsubAect !atters, the first !otion addressed the !erits of the case and the ur4ent !otion (as filed

on the 4round of ne(l%0discovered evidence. It adds that even the N>RC did not consider the

ur4ent !otion for reconsideration a prohibited pleadin4.

7e find !erit in the a4enc%;s ar4u!ent. 'echnicalities of la( and procedure are interpreted ver%

liberall% and are not considered controllin4 in labor cases. -rticle ))& of the >abor Code

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt28


26/27

provides that in an% proceedin4 before the Co!!ission or an% of the >abor -rbiters, the rules

of evidence prevailin4 in courts of la( or eFuit% shall not be controllin4 and it is the spirit and

intention of this Code that the Co!!ission and its !e!bers and the >abor -rbiters shall use

ever% and all reasonable !eans to ascertain the facts in each case speedil% and obAectivel% and

(ithout re4ard to technicalities of la( or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

In $eepin4 (ith the spirit and intent of the la( and in the interest of fairpla%, (e find it both

necessar% and appropriate to revie( the present labor controvers%. 9or the sa!e reason, (e rule

out laches as a bar to the filin4 of the co!plaint.

'he !erits of the case

Contrar% to the conclusions of the N>RC and of the C-, (e find no substantial evidence

supportin4 the rulin4 that the a4enc% and its principal are liable to Na#al b% (a% of te!porar% or

partial total disabilit% benefits. 'he labor tribunal and the appellate court 4rossl% !isappreciated

the facts and even co!pletel% disre4arded vital pieces of evidence in resolvin4 the case.

9irst. Na#al dise!bar$ed fro! the vessel MV Rover for a finished contract, not for !edical

reasons. 'his not(ithstandin4, he clai!s that i!!ediatel% after his dise!bar$ation, he reported

to Colorado about his health condition and (or$ e"perience on board the vessel. 8e further

clai!ed that Colorado referred hi! to a co!pan%0desi4nated ph%sician (ho found hi! afflicted

(ith hi4h blood pressure and diabetes. 'hereupon, he as$ed for co!pensation and !edical

assistance, but the a4enc% denied his reFuest and alle4edl% advised hi! not to (or$ a4ain.

E"cept for his bare alle4ations, nothin4 on record supports Na#al;s clai! that he contracted his

supposed ail!ents on board the vessel. -s the >- aptl% observed, if indeed a co!pan%0

desi4nated ph%sician e"a!ined Na#al, (h% did the ph%sician not issue a !edical report

confir!in4 Na#al;s supposed ail!entsL -nd (h% did Na#al not as$ for a certification of the

ph%sician;s findin4s if he reall% intended to as$ for disabilit% co!pensation fro! the petitionersL

Hnder the standard e!plo%!ent contract, the e!plo%er is under obli4ation to furnish the

seafarer, upon reFuest, a cop% of all pertinent !edical reports or an% records at no cost to the

seafarer .)<

'he absence of a !edical report or certification of Na#al;s ail!ents and disabilit% onl% si4nifies

that his post0e!plo%!ent !edical e"a!ination did not ta$e place as clai!ed. 7e thus cannotaccept the N>RC reasonin4 that the absence of a !edical report does not !ean that Na#al (as

not e"a!ined b% the co!pan%0desi4nated ph%sician as the !edical reports are nor!all% in the

custod% of the !annin4 a4enc% and not (ith the sea!an. In HS' 9acult% Hnion v. Hniversit% of

Santo 'o!as,*+ the Court declared6 a part% alle4in4 a critical fact !ust support his alle4ation

(ith substantial evidence. -n% decision based on unsubstantiated alle4ation cannot stand as it

(ill offend due process.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt30


27/27

Second. 7hile (e have ruled out laches as a bar to Na#al;s clai!, the inordinate dela% in the

institution of the co!plaint casts a 4rave suspicion on Na#al;s true intentions a4ainst the

petitioners. It too$ hi! t(o %ears and &+ !onths to file the co!plaint on Septe!ber &, )++:/*&

since he dise!bar$ed fro! the vessel MV Rover on Nove!ber ):, )++&. 7h% it too$ hi! that

lon4 a ti!e to file the co!plaint onl% Na#al can ans(er, but one thin4 is clear6 he obtained

another e!plo%!ent as a sea!an for three !onths fro! March &, )++: to @une &&, )++:/, lon4

after his e!plo%!ent (ith the petitioners. 8e (as deplo%ed b% !annin4 a4ent Crossocean

Marine Services, Inc. Crossocean/ on board the vessel Qi#o!ba - 9PSO, for the principal

Eurest Shr! 9ar East Pte., >td.*) Na#al ad!itted as !uch (hen he sub!itted in evidence before

the >- photocopies of the visa section of his passport sho(in4 a departure on March &, )++:**

and an arrival on @une &&, )++:.*:1âwphi1

If Na#al (as able to secure an e!plo%!ent as a sea!an (ith another vessel after his

dise!bar$ation in Nove!ber )++&, ho( can there he a case a4ainst the petitioners, considerin4

especiall% the lapse of ti!e (hen the case (as institutedL 8o( could Na#al be accepted foranother ocean04oin4 Aob if he had not been in 4ood healthL 8o( could he be en4a4ed as a

sea!an after his e!plo%!ent (ith the petitioners if he (as then alread% disabledL

Surel%, before he (as deplo%ed b% Crossocean, he (ent throu4h a pre0e!plo%!ent !edical

e"a!ination and (as found fit to (or$ and health%B other(ise, he (ould not have been hired.

Hnder the circu!stances, his ail!ents resultin4 in his clai!ed disabilit% could onl% have been

contracted or a44ravated durin4 his en4a4e!ent b% his last e!plo%er or, at the ver% least, durin4

the period after his contract of e!plo%!ent (ith the petitioners e"pired. 9or i4norin4 this 4larin4

fact, the N>RC co!!itted a 4rave abuse of discretionB for upholdin4 the N>RC, the C-

co!!itted the sa!e Aurisdictional error.

-s a final (ord, it is unfortunate that Na#al died before the case could be resolved, but his death

cannot erase the fact that his clai! for disabilit% benefits (as brou4ht a4ainst the (ron4 part%,

nor the realit% that his clai! a4ainst the petitioners suffered fro! fatal defects.

78ERE9ORE, pre!ises considered, the petition is 1R-N'ED. 'he assailed resolutions of the

Court of -ppeals are SE' -SIDE. 'he co!plaint is DISMISSED for lac$ of !erit. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_177103_2013.html#fnt34

Documents

CIV PRO FULL.docx