Ravago v.

Esso Eastern Marine & Trans-Global

Facts:
-

Trans-Global Maritime Agency is the Phil agent of Singapore-based Esso

Eastern Marine (now Petroleum Shipping)
Ravago was hired as a seaman onboard various Esso vessels (34 separate
and unconnected fixed-period contracts, by 3 different companies Esso
Tankers, Esso Intl Shipping, Esso Eastern Marine; total of 22 years)
Under a new contract, he was ordered to report on Sept 1992 for a medical
pre-employment examination which he passed and attended the predeparture orientation seminar after
On Oct 1992, a stray bullet hit Ravago on the left leg while waiting for a bus
ride in Cubao
His wife informed EIS of the incident for the purpose of availing medical
benefits
The doctor opined that Ravago would not be able to cope with the job of a
seaman and suggested that he be given a desk job. Ravagos left leg became
shorter and resulted in a limp when walking
Instead of rehiring him, and after Ravagos execution of a Quitclaim, EIS paid
him his Career Employment Incentive Plant and tax refund amounting to 162k
Ravago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement
with POEA
LA: illegally dismissed
o Ravago was a regular employee because he was engaged to perform
activities which were necessary and desirable in the usual trade or
business of employer;
o Services were repeatedly contracted
o Employer cannot terminate worker without finding by public health
authority that the disease is of such nature or at such stage that it
cannot be cured within 6 months
NLRC: affirmed
o Quitclaim cannot be considered a waiver of his right to question the
validity of his dismissal and seek reliefs
Esso Eastern Marine and Trans-Global filed with the CA:
o Petition for certiorari
o Urgent Application for the issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary
injunction which it granted
Ravago filed a motion to set aside Resolution granting TRO, arguing that the
case was a labor dispute wherein an injunction is proscribed under Art. 254
Respondents countered that the case did not involve a labor dispute but a
money claim against an employer as a result of termination of employment
CA: reversed NLRC decision
o Injunction made permanent
o Seafarers are contractual employees whose terms of employment are
fixed for a certain period of time. The fact that Ravago was not rehired
upon the completion of his contract did not result in his illegal
dismissal; hence he was not entitled to reinstatement or separation
pay

An injunction is a preservative remedy issued for the protection of a

substantive right or interest, an antidote resorted to only when there is
pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be
rendered under any standard compensation

Issue(1):
w/n the CA erred in issuing a restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction
Held:
Reliance on Art. 254 is misplaced. The law proscribes the issuance of injunctive
relief only in those cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. Moreover, said
article specifically provides that the NLRC may grant injunctive relief under Art. 218
thereof.
The case at bar neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute. It did not involve
the fixing of terms or conditions of employment or representation of persons with
respect thereto. Ravagos complaint revolves around the issue of his alleged
dismissal from office and his claim for backwages, damages and attorneys fees.
Besides, the anti-injunction policy of the Labor Code, basically is freedom at the
workplace. It is more appropriate in the promotion of the primacy of free collective
bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and
conciliation as modes of settling labor and industrial disputes.
Generally, an injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of a persons
substantive rights/interests. It is not a cause of action in itself but a mere provisional
remedy, an appendage to the main suit. Pressing necessity requires that it should
be resorted only to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under
any measure of consideration. The application of an injunctive writ rests upon the
presence of an exigency or of an exceptional reason before the main case can be
regularly heard. The indispensable conditions for granting such temporary injunctive
relief are:
a. that the complaint alleges facts which appear satisfactory to establish a
proper basis for injunction, and
b. that on the entire showing from the contending parties, the injunction is
reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the
litigation.
Case at bar: Respondents petition contains facts sufficient to warrant the issuance
of an injunction under Art. 218(3) of the Labor Code. Further, respondents had
already posted a surety bond more than adequate to cover the judgment award.