PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc v. NLRC (December 14, 2006)
Facts
In April 1996, Rusel was employed as seaman by P! "#ippin$ P#ilippines %or and in be#al% o% i&s %orei$n principal, 'in$ arine* Rusel &#ereby +oined &#e essel - em&e. %or 12 mon&#s wi&# a basic mon&#ly salary o% '"/400*00, liin$ allowance o% '"/140*00, %i.ed oer&ime ra&e o% '"/120*00 per mon&#, aca&ion leae wi&# pay o% '"/40*00 per mon&# and special allowance o% '"/1*00* n 3uly 3uly 16, 199 1996, 6, w#il w#ilee Ruse Rusell was was clea cleani nin$ n$ &#e &#e esse essel lss 5i&c 5i&c#e #en, n, #e slip slippe ped, d, and and as a conseuence &#ereo%, #e su%%ered a bro5en7sprained an5le on #is le%& %oo&* A reues& %or medical e.amina&ion was %la&ly denied by &#e cap&ain o% &#e essel* n Au$us& 18, 1996, %eelin$ an unbearable pain in #is an5le, Rusel +umped o%% &#e essel usin$ a li%e +ac5e& and swam &o s#ore* e was brou$#& &o a #ospi&al #ospi&al w#ere #e was con%ined con%ined %or : days* n Au$us& 22, 1996, a essels essels a$en a$en&& %e&c %e&c#e #ed d Ruse Rusell %rom %rom &#e &#e #osp #ospi& i&al al and and was was reui reuire red d &o board board a plan planee bou bound nd %or %or &#e &#e P#ilippines* n "ep&ember 26, 1996, Rusel %iled a complain& %or ille$al dismissal, nonpaymen& o% wa$es, oer&ime pay, claim %or medical bene%i&s, sic5 leae pay and dama$es a$ains& P! "#ippin$ and 'in$ arine be%ore &#e arbi&ra&ion branc# o% &#e ;!R* In &#eir answer, &#e la&&er alle$ed &#a& Rusel deser&ed #is employmen& by +umpin$ o%% &#e essel* !abor Arbi&er #eld &#a& responden& is liable %or &#e un+us& repa&ria&ion o% &#e complainan&* ;!R a%%irmed &#e %indin$ o% &#e !abor Arbi&er*
Issue: Whether or not respondent was guilty o desertion to !ustiy his dis"issal. #eld: No
Issue: Whether or not the provisions o the Constitution as well as the La$or Code which aord protection to la$or apply to Filipino e"ployees wor%ing a$road.
#eld: &es, it does.
Pe&i&ioners admi& &#a& &#ey did no& in%orm pria&e responden& in wri&in$ o% &#e c#ar$es a$ains& #im and &#a& &#ey %ailed &o conduc& a %ormal ines&i$a&ion &o $ie #im oppor&uni&y &o air #is side* oweer, pe&i&ioners con&end &#a& &#e &win reuiremen&s o% no&ice and #earin$ applies s&ric&ly only w#en &#e employmen& is wi&#in &#e P#ilippines and &#a& &#ese need no& be s&ric&ly obsered in cases o% in&erna&ional mari&ime or oerseas employmen&* =#e our& does no& a$ree* =#e proisions o% &#e ons&i&u&ion as well as &#e !abor ode w#ic# a%%ord pro&ec&ion &o labor apply &o mploymen& en&ered in&o by and be&ween pe&i&ioners and pria&e responden& was e.ecu&ed #ere in &#e P#ilippines wi&# &#e approal o% &#e P#ilippine erseas >mploymen& Adminis&ra&ion (P>A)* ence, &#e !abor ode &o$e&#er wi&# i&s implemen&in$ rules and re$ula&ions and o&#er laws a%%ec&in$ labor apply in &#is case* Accordin$ly, as &o &#e reuiremen& o% no&ice and #earin$ in &#e case o% a sea%arer, &#e our& #as already ruled in a number o% cases &#a& be%ore a seaman can be dismissed and disc#ar$ed %rom &#e essel, i& is reuired &#a& #e be $ien a wri&&en no&ice re$ardin$ &#e c#ar$es a$ains& #im and &#a& #e be a%%orded a %ormal ines&i$a&ion w#ere #e could de%end #imsel% personally or &#rou$# a represen&a&ie* ence, &#e employer s#ould s&ric&ly comply wi&# &#e &win reuiremen&s o% no&ice and #earin$ wi&#ou& re$ard &o &#e na&ure and si&us o% employmen& or &#e na&ionali&y o% &#e employer* Pe&i&ioners %ailed &o comply wi&# &#ese &win reuiremen&s* ?#ere%ore, &#e pe&i&ion is par&ly $ran&ed* =#e our& o% Appeals Decision da&ed December 1:, 2001 and Resolu&ion da&ed April 10, 2002 are a%%irmed wi&# modi%ica&ion &o &#e e%%ec& &#a& &#e award o% '"/1620*00 represen&in$ pria&e responden&s &#ree mon&#s salary is reduced &o '"/1200*00* =#e award o% '"/0*00 represen&in$ pria&e responden&s liin$ allowance, oer&ime pay, aca&ion pay and special allowance %or &wo mon&#s is dele&ed and in lieu &#ereo%, an award o% '"/10*00 is $ran&ed represen&in$ pria&e responden&s liin$ allowance, special allowance and aca&ion leae wi&# pay %or &#e same period*
