abosta ship vs. hilario

7/25/2019 Abosta Ship vs. Hilario

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 195792 November 24, 2014

ABOSTA SHIP MANAGEMENT !"#or ARTEMIO CORBI$$A,Petitioners,vs.%I$HI$M M. HI$ARIO,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

SERENO, CJ:

"bosta Ship Mana#e$ent !orporation %petitioner& filed a Petition for Revie' on!ertiorari(under Rule )* of the (++ Rules of !ivil Procedure assailin# the !ourt of

"ppeals %!"& Decision-dated Dece$ber -/(/ and Resolutiondated (( Februar0-/(( in !"12.R. SP No. ((/)*.

The antecedents of this case are as follo's3

On -) October -//-, an e$plo0$ent contract 'as e4ecuted b0 petitioner, on behalf ofits forei#n principal Panstar Shippin# !o., 5td., and respondent. In this contract, thelatter 'as hired as a bosun %boats'ain& of the forei#n vessel 2rand Mar6 for a period of

nine $onths, 'ith a $onthl0 salar0 of 7SD*88.)

The contract 'as dul0 approved b0 thePhilippine Overseas $plo0$ent "#enc0 %PO"& on -* October -//-.*

On - Nove$ber -//-, upon reportin# to the office of petitioner, respondent 'asinfor$ed that the latter9s deplo0$ent had been postponed due to shiftin# de$ands ofthe forei#n principal. It appears, thou#h, that the forei#n principal decided to pro$ote anable sea$an on board the vessel instead of hirin# respondent. Petitioner thusre:uested respondent to 'ait for another t'o to three $onths for a vacanc0 to occur.8Inthe $eanti$e, respondent 'as allo'ed to$a6e cash advancesas financial assistance.

ventuall0, on -;


2/5

>o'ever, the 5abor "rbiter denied the $otion, statin# that the action for da$a#esarisin# fro$ e$plo0$ent relations 'as clearl0 'ithin its =urisdiction.

On ( Februar0 -//), the National 5abor Relations !o$$ission %N5R!& #rantedpetitioner9s appeal and reversed the 5abor "rbiter9s Order. The N5R! held that

considerin# no e$plo0er1e$plo0ee relationship e4isted bet'een the parties, the PO"had =urisdiction over the case. The clai$ for non1deplo0$ent 'as ad$inistrative incharacter, and sanctions $a0 be i$posed b0 the PO".;

Respondent conse:uentl0 filed a Petition for !ertiorari 'ith the !" :uestionin# therulin# of the N5R!.

On ( March -//8, the !" #ranted the Petition. It pointed out that Section (/ of the5abor !ode provides that the =urisdiction of the 5abor "rbiter includes clai$s arisin# b0virtue of an0 la' or contract involvin# Filipino 'or6ers for overseas deplo0$ent,includin# clai$s for actual, $oral, e4e$plar0 and other for$s of da$a#es. Mean'hile,

the PO" has =urisdiction over pre1e$plo0$ent cases that are ad$inistrative incharacter. Thus, respondent9s !o$plaint 'as reinstated.+

"fter the parties sub$itted their respective Position Papers, the 5abor "rbiter orderedpetitioner to pa0 respondent his salar0 for nine $onths in the a$ount of 7SD (/,/(.The 5abor "rbiter found that the contract e4ecuted bet'een the parties and the non1fulfill$ent thereof entitled respondent to his salar0 for the 'hole duration of the contract.>o'ever, the arbiter did not find bad faith, 'hich 'ould have $erited the a'ard of $oralda$a#es.(/

This Decision pro$pted petitioner to appeal to the N5R!. On (( March -//+, it held

that respondent9s non1deplo0$ent 'as due to a valid e4ercise of the forei#n principal9s$ana#e$ent prero#ative, 'hich should be #iven due respect. Thus, the N5R!dis$issed the !o$plaint, but ordered petitioner ?to co$pl0 'ith our directive to deplo0respondent as soon as possible or face the inevitable conse:uences.? ((

Dissatisfied 'ith the N5R!9s rulin#,respondent filed a Petition for !ertiorari 'ith the !".On Dece$ber -/(/, it #ranted the Petition and held that the N5R! co$$itted #raveabuse of discretion b0 holdin# that the able sea$an9s pro$otion 'as a valid$ana#e$ent prero#ative. The !" further ruled that since respondent had alread0 beenhired for the sa$e position, then there 'as no lon#er an0 vacant position to 'hich topro$ote the able sea$an. Moreover, under the PO" Rules, petitioner assu$ed =oint

and solidar0 liabilit0 'ith its forei#n principal, and 'as thus liable to respondent. It thusfound the N5R!9s Decision to be contrar0 to la' and prevailin# =urisprudence. Finall0,the !" ruled that N5R!9s Order for petitioner ?to deplo0 respondent as soon as possibleor face inevitable conse:uences? 'as ?nonsensical? considerin# that the controvers0arose fro$ 'a0 bac6 in -//-, and that the assailed Order 'as issued in -//+. (-The !"li6e'ise denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed b0 petitioner. >ence, this Petition.

"SSI2NMNT OF RRORS
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt12


3/5

Petitioner raises the follo'in# errors alle#edl0 co$$itted b0 the !"3

The >onorable !ourt of "ppeals co$$itted #rave reversible error 'hen it ruled thatco$plainant is entitled to actual da$a#es in the li#ht of Paul v. Santia#o case, thedoctrine of stare decis @sicA bein# inapplicable in the instant case as to the issue of

a'ard of actual da$a#es.

The >onorable N5R! did not co$$it #rave abuse of discretion 'hen it ruled differentl0fro$ Santia#o case @onA the issue of actual da$a#es contrar0 to erroneous decision ofthe !ourt of "ppeals that N5R! co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion in disre#ardin#Santia#o case on the issue of actual da$a#es.

The >onorable !ourt of "ppeals co$$itted reversible error 'hen it disre#arded thefactual findin#s of the N5R!, that, if properl0 considered, 'ould =ustif0 petitioner9s use of$ana#e$ent prero#ative.

The >onorable !ourt of "ppeals co$$itted reversible error in reinstatin# the a'ard ofactual da$a#es despite the 'ant of an0 factual and le#al basis and a#ain in$issappl0in# @sicA Datu$ancase in the instant case.(

T> !O7RT9S R75IN2

The issue boils do'n to 'hether the !" co$$itted serious errors of la'.

Be rule in the ne#ative.

There is no dispute that the parties entered into a contract of e$plo0$ent on -)

October -//-, and that petitioner failed to deplo0 respondent. The controvers0 arosefro$ the act of the forei#n principal in pro$otin# another person, an act that effectivel0disre#arded the contract dated -) October -//- entered into bet'een petitioner, onbehalf of its forei#n principal, and respondent. There 'as a clear breach of contract'hen petitioner failed to deplo0 respondent in accordance 'ith the PO" approvedcontract.

The !ourt is left 'ith the issue of 'hether such breach 'ould entitle respondent to thepa0$ent of actual da$a#es for the failureof petitioner to co$pl0 'ith the latter9sobli#ations in accordance 'ith the e$plo0$ent contract.

It is the contention of petitioner that respondent9s non1deplo0$ent 'as due to theforei#n principal9s $ana#e$ent prero#ative to pro$ote an able sea$an. Supposedl0,this e4ercise of $ana#e$ent prero#ative is a valid and =ustifiable reason that 'ouldne#ate an0 liabilit0for da$a#es.

Be do not a#ree.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt13


4/5

Cased on a co$$unication sent b0 a certain M.. e lost the opportunit0 to appl0 for otherpositions in other a#encies 'hen he si#ned the contract of e$plo0$ent 'ith petitioner.Si$pl0 put, that contract 'as bindin# on the parties and $a0 not later be diso'nedsi$pl0 because of a chan#e of $ind of either one of the$.

The unilateral and unreasonable failure to deplo0 respondent constitutes breach ofcontract, 'hich #ives rise to a liabilit0 to pa0 actual da$a#es. The sanctions providedfor non1deplo0$ent do not end 'ith the suspension or cancellation of license or thei$position of a fine and the return of all docu$ents at no cost to the 'or6er. The0 do notforfend a seafarer fro$ institutin# an action for da$a#es a#ainst the e$plo0er ora#enc0 that has failed to deplo0 hi$.-/
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_195792_2014.html#fnt20


5/5

!onsiderin# that it 'as petitioner 'ho entered into the contract of e$plo0$ent 'ithrespondent for and on behalf of the forei#n principal, it has the pri$ar0 obli#ation toensure the i$ple$entation of that contract. Further$ore, in line 'ith the polic0 of thestate to protect and alleviate the pli#ht of the 'or6in# class, Section (, para#raph f %& ofRule II of the PO" Rules and Re#ulations,-(clearl0 provides that the private

e$plo0$ent a#enc0 shall assu$e =oint and solidar0 liabilit0 'ith the e$plo0er. Indeed,this !ourt has consistentl0 held that private e$plo0$ent a#encies are held =ointl0 andseverall0 liable 'ith the forei#n1based e$plo0er for an0 violation of the recruit$enta#ree$ent or contract of e$plo0$ent.--This =oint and solidar0 liabilit0 i$posed b0 la'on recruit$ent a#encies and forei#n e$plo0ers is $eant to assure the a##rieved 'or6erof i$$ediate and sufficient pa0$ent of 'hat is due hi$.-

In su$, the failure to deplo0 respondent 'as an e4ercise of a $ana#e$ent prero#ativethat 'ent be0ond its li$its and resulted in a breach of contract. In tu$, petitionersbreach #ave rise to respondents cause of action to clai$ actual da$a#es for thepecuniar0 loss suffered b0 the latter in the for$ of the loss of nine $onths 'orth of

salar0 as provided in the PO"1approved contract of e$plo0$ent.

B>RFOR, pre$ises considered, the instant Petition is DNID.

SO ORDRD.

MARIA $OUR&ES P.A. SERENO

!hief

abosta ship vs. hilario

Documents