facts petitioner SC ruling

Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Grp.

V. Medequillo
GR No. 177498
January 18, 2012
1
st
contract:
November 6, 1991
9 months
$808 + $404 OT pay

Feb 2, 1991 ordered by the ship
captain to disembark the vessel
and repatriated back to manila
for no reason or explanation

April 23, 1992 transferred
employment and second contract
was approved

No deployment

Dec 1994 respondent
demanded for his passport and
other employment documents
but was only allowed in exchange
of signing a document
No novation; 1
st
contract is
different and separate from that
of the 2
nd
contract



Complaint re 1
st
contract already
prescribed (3 yrs)




*actual deployment is a
suspensive condition for the
commencement of the
employment


No dismissal as there was no er-
ee relationship







Breach but with valid reason



Reprimand instead as penalty for
non-deployment
Respondent was still employed
under the 1
st
contract when he
negotiated with the petitioners
on the second contract
novation became an unavoidable
conclusion

1
st
the start of the 3 yr period
must be reckoned on feb 1992,
which was the date of his
repatriation. The cause of action
under the 1
st
contract was already
time-barred

Yes. But, without actual
employment, the perfected
contract gives rise to obligations
on the part of the petitioners

Yes. According to POEA standard
employment contract as there
was no actual departure of the
seafarer from the point of hire.
However, this does not mean that
the seafarer has no remedy in
case of non-deployment without
any valid reason

Cannot be sustained as there was
no evidence to prove the same
was submitted

POEA 1991 is applicable because
the breach of contract happened
on feb 1992
Novation is the extinguishment
of an obligation by the
substitution or change of the
obligation by a subsequent one
which extinguishes or modifies
the first, either by changing the
object or principal conditions or
by substituting another in place
of the debtor, or by subrogating
a third person in the rights of the
creditor

Even before the start of the er-ee
relationship, the perfection of the
contract gave birth to certain
rights and obligations, the breach
of which may give rise to cause of
action against the erring party
Bright Maritime Corporation v.
Fantonial
GR No. 165935
Feb 8, 2012
January 15, 2000 contract of
employment

January 17, 2000 medical
examination; med cert with fit
work; schedule of flight; PDOS
seminar; was advised by the
liaison officer that he could not
leave because there are some
defects on his med cert;

January 18, 2000 he was told
that there was nothing wrong
with his med cert

May 16, 2000 complaint for
illegal dismissal was filed


Preventing respondent to leave
Manila is valid




Employment contract was not
perfected







Should not award monetary
benefits


The explanation of the doctor as
to the standard operating
procedure is against logic and
chronological recording of
medical procedures


It was perfected but did not
commence when the petitioner
was not able to depart from the
point of hire. However, the
perfection of the contract gave
rise to certain rights and
obligations, breach of which
would give cause of action
against the erring party

Award for moral damages
amounting to 30K for the act of
the petitioner was tainted with
bad faith; exemplary damages
must also be awarded for the
correction for the public good
view of the petitioners action of
preventing the respondent from
being deployed because he is not
fit to work, despite evidence to
the contrary; attorneys fees
should also be awarded for the
petitioners act compelled the
respondent to incur expenses to
protect his rights

Estate of Nelso Dulay v Aboitiz
GR No. 172642
June 13, 2012
Nelson Dulay was hired and
initially worked as an ordinary
seaman

RA 8042 is applicable, hence,
NLRC has jurisdiction on the case
There is no specific provision
thereunder which provides for
jurisdiction over disputes or
unresolved grievances regarding

25 days after the completion of
his contract, Dulay died because
of renal failure; he was a bona
fide member of AMOSUP at the
time of his death

Nelsons brother received 20K
pursuant to art. 20(a)2 of the CBA
the interpretation or
implementation of CBA. Art 217
and 261 of the Labor Code are
very specific in stating that VA
have jurisdiction in cases arising
from the interpretation or
implementation of CBA

It is clear that the parties, in the
first place, really intended to
bring to conciliation or VA any
dispute or conflict in the
interpretation or application of
the provisions of CA

Yap v Thenamaris
GR No. 179532
May 30, 2011
Yap was employed as electrician
for the duration of 12 months

After 3 months, vessel was sold

Yap received bonuses, but
refused to accept 1 month wage.
Said he is entitled to the payment
of the unexpired portion of the
contract for illegal dismissal
Illegally dismissed and therefore
entitled to backwages for the
unexpired portion of the contract

5
th
par, sec 10 of RA 8042 is
violative of sec1, art 3 and sec 3,
art 13 for it gives an erring
employer the option to pay an
illegally dismissed migrant
worker only 3 months for every
year of the unexpired term of the
contract and that it violates equal
protection of law
Illegal dismissal is not disputed.

This case should not be different
from Serrano
Docrine of operative fact
applies as a matter of equity and
fair play
People v Ganigan
GR No. 156497
August 20, 2008
35 people and appellees
complained of illegal recruitment
against Marcos Ganigan

The group was asked to pay 2K
for assurance fee and additional
fees
Appellant argues that the
prosecution failed to establish his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The fees are for the registrpation
to the Catholic Mission
The great weight is accorded to
the factual findings of the trial
court on the ascertainment of the
credibility of the witnesses

Romero v People Private respondent asked Romero Petitioner did not recruit the The act of the petitioner clearly
GR no. 171644
November 23, 2011
about securing a job in Israel

Romero got money from
respondent to process his papers

Respondent was able to secure a
job in Israel but was caught and
detained for not having a
working visa



respondents lies within the definition of
recruitment and placement as
defined in art 13, par b of the
labor code