VirJen Shipping and Marine Services vs. NLRC 125 SCRA 577 (1983) Ma.

Cristina Ramos (OAS) Facts: Certain seamen entered into a contract of employment for a 12-month period. Some three months after the commencement of their employment, the seamen demanded a 50% increase of their salaries and benefits. The seamen demanded this increase while their vessel was on route to a port in Australia controlled by the International Transport Federation (ITP) where the ITF could detain the vessels unless it paid its season ITF rates. The agent of the owner of the vessel agreed to a 25% increase, but when the vessel arrived in Japan shortly afterwards, the seamen were repatriated to Manila and their contract terminated. Two motions for reconsideration filed with Second Division were denied by said Division. Another motion for reconsideration was filed with the Supreme Court en banc which gave its due course, after finding that there was a need to reconcile the decision of the Second Division with that of the First Division with the Wallen Decision. In that decision, the First Division had ruled that the termination of the seamen was illegal. Issue: Whether or not the termination of the seamen was illegal. Held: The termination of the contract of the seamen was illegal. A manning contract involves the interests not only of the signatories thereto, such as the local Filipino recruiting agent, the foreign owner of vessel and the Filipino seamen in general as well as the country itself. Conformably to the power vested in the NSB, the law requires that all manning contracts shall be approved by said agency. The stringent rules governing Filipino seamen abroad foreign ships are dictated by national interest.