E2017 | Consti 1 | Prof. de Vera | digest by Jerry
Yap vs. Thenamaris Thenamaris Ship’ s Management (GR 179532) Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Petition:
May 30, 2011 Claudio S. Yap Thenamaris Ship’s Management, Intermare Maritime Agencies Nachura Certiorari under Rule 45
Doctrine:
Equal Protection; No law should single out one classification classification of OFWs and burden it with a peculiar disadvantage
Facts
Petitioner entered a one-year contract of employment with Intermare Maritime Agencies as an electrician of M/T SEASCOUT (one of many vessels owned by Thenamaris Ships) and started working on August 23, 2001 On November 08, 2001, the M/T SEASCOUT was sold to be scrapped. All crewmembers were informed with an advisory stating, “Please ask yr officers and ratings if they wish to be transferred to other vessels after vessel s delivery..x x x.. For crew not wish transfer to declare their prospected time for reembarkation in order to schedule them accly” Only working for about 3 months, Yap received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus, extra bonus, and scrapping bonus. He however refused to accept payment of a onemonth basic wage. Petitioner Yap insisted that he was entitled to 9 months ’ worth worth of wage, representing the unexpired portion of his contract with the company, because he was illegally dismissed. Why does Yap think he was illegally dismissed? Well because the management, upon knowing Petitioner ’ s request for transfer, gave assurance to the latter that they will transfer him to another vessel, even asked him to produce his electrician certificate for this purpose, but nevertheless didn ’ t despite having numerous other vessels. So there. Yap sued. All decisions – from the Labor Arbiter, to the NLRC, to the CA found that respondents acted in bad faith when they willfully failed to have Petitioner transferred to another vessel, thus amounting Illegal Dismissal of Yap. Dispositive portions were similar where moral, exemplary damages, and attorney ’ s fees are concerned concerned EXCEPT for the lump-sum basic wage receivables (number of months) petitioner was entitled to by reason of his illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter NLRC Court of Appeals
9 months of basic wage 3 months, but later reversed to 9 months after an MR 3 months
Why do the courts differ in computations?
E2017 | Consti 1 | Prof. de Vera | digest by Jerry
Well Sec 10 of RA 8042, says, to wit: In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.”
“
Issue/Holding
1. W/N Sec 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional? YES 2. W/N Respondents can challenge the computation of the basic salary ONLY on appeal (in this case, the SC)? NO
Ratio
1. The decision didn’ t actually say much about this issue because while this case was pending, the Supreme Court declared in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. that Sec 10 of RA 8042 really was unconstitutional. They found that by virtue of that provision, fixed term OFW employees are made to waive 9 months for every year of collectible backwages every time they have a year of unexpired term of contract to reckon with AS COMPARED to other illegally dismissed workers, i.e., local workers, other types of OFWs (not fixed term), who are guaranteed of reinstatement and FULL backwages under the Labor Code. On Serrano, the Court held that the subject clause does not state or imply any definitive governmental purpose; hence, the same violates not just therein petitioner’ s right to equal protection, but also his right to substantive due process under the Constitution. On the aspect of the Doctrine of Operative Fact, where when the declaration of a statute or part of it as unconstitutional imposes an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law, the Court ruled that this will not apply to the case at bar. “ After all, it was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents. ” 2. No. “Matters not taken up below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. They must be seasonably in the proceedings before the lower tribunals. Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties; consequently, issues not raised before the lower tribunals cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. ” Also, respondents themselves originally averred in their petition before the CA that basic salary included tanker allowance, which is now, the exact same thing they are trying to contest. Like anong shit yan diba.
Fallo
xxx Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision xxx hereby MODIFIED xxx petitioner is AWARDED his salaries xxx consisting of nine months computed at the rate of US $1,430.00 per month. All other awards are herby AFFIRMED. xxx
