- Information
- AI Chat
Was this document helpful?
Abosta v hilario - labor
Course: Business Administration (BA 122)
291 Documents
Students shared 291 documents in this course
University: St. Mary's College
Was this document helpful?
G.R. No. 195792, November 24, 2014
ABOSTA SHIP MANAGEMENT AND/OR ARTEMIO CORBILLA, Petitioners, v. WILHILM M.
HILARIO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
Abosta Ship Management Corporation (petitioner) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated 3 December 2010 and
Resolution3 dated 11 February 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 110745.
The antecedents of this case are as follows:cralawlawlibrary
On 24 October 2002, an employment contract was executed by petitioner, on behalf of its foreign principal
Panstar Shipping Co., Ltd., and respondent. In this contract, the latter was hired as a bosun (boatswain) of
the foreign vessel Grand Mark for a period of nine months, with a monthly salary of USD566.4 The contract
was duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) on 25 October 2002.5
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On 27 November 2002, upon reporting to the office of petitioner, respondent was informed that the latter's
deployment had been postponed due to shifting demands of the foreign principal. It appears, though, that
the foreign principal decided to promote an able seaman on board the vessel instead of hiring respondent.
Petitioner thus requested respondent to wait for another two to three months for a vacancy to occur.6 In the
meantime, respondent was allowed to make cash advances7 as financial assistance.
Eventually, on 28 January 2003, respondent filed a Complaint with the POEA against petitioner for violation
of Section 2(r), Rule I, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules by failing to deploy respondent within the prescribed
period without any valid reason. Respondent likewise filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter on 6 February
2003 based on the same ground and sought actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the Complaint, alleging that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over
the matter, as jurisdiction was supposedly lodged with the POEA. However, the Labor Arbiter denied the
motion, stating that the action for damages arising from employment relations was clearly within its
jurisdiction.
On 13 February 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) granted petitioner's appeal and
reversed the Labor Arbiter's Order. The NLRC held that considering no employer-employee relationship
existed between the parties, the POEA had jurisdiction over the case. The claim for non-deployment was
administrative in character, and sanctions may be imposed by the POEA.8
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondent consequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA questioning the ruling of the NLRC.
On 17 March 2006, the CA granted the Petition. It pointed out that Section 10 of the Labor Code provides
that the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter includes claims arising by virtue of any law or contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages. Meanwhile, the POEA has jurisdiction over pre-employment cases that are administrative in
character. Thus, respondent's Complaint was reinstated.9
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
After the parties submitted their respective Position Papers, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay
respondent his salary for nine months in the amount of USD 10,071. The Labor Arbiter found that the
contract executed between the parties and the non-fulfillment thereof entitled respondent to his salary for
the whole duration of the contract. However, the arbiter did not find bad faith, which would have merited
the award of moral damages.10
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This Decision prompted petitioner to appeal to the NLRC. On 11 March 2009, it held that respondent's non-
deployment was due to a valid exercise of the foreign principal's management prerogative, which should be
given due respect. Thus, the NLRC dismissed the Complaint, but ordered petitioner "to comply with our
directive to deploy respondent as soon as possible or face the inevitable consequences."11
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Dissatisfied with the NLRC's ruling, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. On 3 December