CLA CLAUDIO UDIO YAP vs. vs. THEN THENAM AMAR ARIS IS SHIP’ SHIP’S S MANA MANAGE GEMEN MENT T and and INTER INTERMAR MARE E MARI MARITIM TIME E AGENCIES INC G.R. No. 17953 Ma! 3"# "11
$ACTS •
•
•
•
•
•
Petitio etitioner ner Claudi Claudio o Yap was was employ employed ed as electr electric ician ian of the vesse vessel, l, M/T SEASCO SEASCOT T on A%&% A%&%s' s' 1(# 1(# ""1 ""1 !y In')*+a In')*+a*) *) Ma*,',+ Ma*,',+) ) A&)n-, A&)n-,)s. )s. The employment contract he entered into was for a d%*a',on o 1 +on'/s. On Au"ust #$, #%%&, Yap !oarded the vessel and commenced his 'o! as an electrician( Ho0)v)*# Ho0)v)*# on Nov)+)* 2# ""1# '/) v)ss) 0/)*) /) 0as 0o*4,n& 0as sod. POEA was informed a!out the sale on )ecem!er *, #%%&( Ya# Ya# alon" with other crewmem!ers, 0)*) ,no*+)d ! '/) Mas')* o '/),* v)ss) '/a' '/) sa+) 0as sod and 0, ) s-*a)d. Yap Yap received received his seniority !onus, vacation !onus, e+tra !onus alon" with the scrappin" !onus /o0)v)* /) *)%s)d 'o a--)' '/) a!+)n' o /,s on)6+on'/ as,- 0a&) a--o*d,n& 'o /,+# /) 0as )n',')d 'o '/) a!+)n' o '/) %n)8,*)d o*',on o /,s -on'*a-' s,n-) /) 0as ,)&a! d,s+,ss)d *o+ '/) )+o!+)n'. e alle"ed that he opted for immediate transfer !ut none was made( On the other hand, the Ship mana"ement contended that Yap was not ille"ally dismissed since followin" the sale of the vessel, Yap si"ned o- from the vessel on .ovem!er &%, #%%# and was paid his wa"es correspondin" to the months he wored or until .ovem!er &%, #%%& plus his !onuses( Thus, Ya Ya )d a -o+a,n' o* I)&a D,s+,ssa 0,'/ da+a&)s !efore the 0a!or Ar!iter(
)ecision of 0a!or Ar!iter1 0a!or 0a!or Ar!it Ar!iter er rende rendere red d ,n avo* avo* o Ya# nd,n nd,n& & '/a' '/a' /) 0as -ons' -ons'*%*%-',v ',v)! )! and and ,)&a! d,s+,ss)d ! *)sond)n's. 0A found that respondents acted in !ad faith when they assured Yap of re2em!aration and re3uired him to produce an electrician certi4cate durin" durin" the period period of his contract contract,, !ut actually actually he was was not a!le to !oard !oard one despite despite respondents5 numerous vessels( Accordin" to the 0A, s,n-) '/) %n)8,*)d o*',on o Ya’s -on'*a-' 0as LESS THAN ONE YEAR : Ya 0as )n',')d 'o /,s saa*,)s o* '/) UNE;PIRED PORTION O$ HIS CONTRACT o* a PERIOD O$ 9 MONTHS. •
•
)ecision of .06C1 A7rmed the 4ndin"s of 0A that Yap was indeed constructively and ille"ally dismissed( owever, .06C ruled that Yap was only )n',')d 'o saa*,)s o* 3 MONTHS as *ov,d)d %nd)* S)-. 1" o RA 2"( A motion for Partial 6econsideration was 4led !oth !y Yap and respondents A7rmin" the 4ndin"s of ille"al dismissal, NLRC *)v)*s)d ,'s )a*,)* d)-,s,on and /)d '/a' '/a' Ya 0as 0as )n', )n',' ')d )d 'o /,s /,s saa saa*! *! o* o* '/) '/) UN UNE; E;PI PIRE RED D POR PORTION TION O$ HIS HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT o* a )*,od o 9 MONTHS. • •
• •
)ecision of Court of Appeals1 CA a7rmed the rulin" of 0A and .06C that Yap was ille"ally dismissed( •
•
owever, it revered the .06C rulin" 8 '/) o',on o <3 +on'/s o* )v)*! !)a* o '/) %n)8,*)d ')*+# 0/,-/)v)* ,s )ss= ,s a,-a) ,n '/,s -as) pursuant to Sec( &% of 6A 9%:#(
Note: When this case was pending before the Supreme Court, the Court declared the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the clause
•
6espondents Ar"uments1 A0a*) o '/) S)**ano vs Gaan' *%,n&# PRONOUNCEMENT O$ UNCONSTITUTIONALITY >;or for $ months for every year of the une+pired term, whichever is lessE APPLICATION o '/) a0 ,n '/,s -as). Petitioner5s 'an4)* ao0an-) o US?13" s/o%d no' ) ,n-%d)d ,n '/) -o+%'a',on o /,s as,- saa*! ,nvo4,n& '/) Serrano *%,n& '/a' TAN@ER ALLOANCE SHOULD BE E;CLUDED $ROM THE DE$INITION O$ THE TERM The CA rulin" included the taner allowance in computin" the lump2sum salary of Ya p? •
•
ISSUES 1. @O. the clause “or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” under Sec( &% >6A 9%:#? is unconstitutional &(&( =s the doctrine of operative fact applica!le in this case #( @O. the taner allowance should !e included in the computation of the ; as,- saa*!= to !e awarded to Yap $( @hat is the proper computation of the lump2sum salary to !e awarded to Yap !y reason of his ille"al dismissal RULING 1. @O. the clause “or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” under Sec( &% >6A 9%:#? is unconstitutional YES. As a*)ad! d)-a*)d ,n '/) Serrano rulin'% the clause “or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” under Sec( &% >6A 9%:#? ,s UNCONSTITUTIONAL o* ),n& v,oa',v) o '/) O$’s *,&/' 'o )%a *o')-',on o a0s As held in the Serrano rulin"1
TheCo ur tc o nc l ude st hatt hes u bj e c tc l a us ec o nt ai nsas u s pe c tc l as s i fic a t i oni nt hat ,i nt he c o mp ut a t i o no ft h emo ne t a r yb e n e fit so ffi x e d t e r me mp l o ye e swh oa r ei l l e g a l l yd i s c h ar g e d ,
i ti mpose sa3monthcaponthec l ai m ofOFWswi t hanunexpi r e dport i onofoneye aror mo r ei nt h e i rc o nt r a c t s , b utn on eo nt h ec l a i mso fo t h e rOF Wso rl o c a lwo r k e r swi t hfix e d t e r me mp l o yme n t .Th es u b j e c tc l a us es i n g l e so u to n ec l a s s i fic a t i o no fOF Wsa ndb ur d e n si t wi t hape c ul i ardi s a dv ant ag e . Moreover, the su!'ect clause do)s no' s'a') o* ,+! an! d)n,',v) &ov)*n+)n'a %*os) /)n-) ,' v,oa')s )',',on)*’s *,&/' 'o )%a *o')-',on and *,&/' 'o s%s'an',v) d%) *o-)ss. &(& =s the doctrine of operative fact applica!le in this case NO# '/) do-'*,n) o o)*a',v) a-' ,s no' a,-a) ,n '/,s -as). As a "eneral rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no ri"htsB imposes no dutiesB it a-ords no protection, it creates no o7ceB it is inoperative as if it has not !een passed at all( owever, the do-'*,n) o o)*a',v) a-' ,s an )8-)',on 'o '/,s &)n)*a *%) nulli4es the e-ects of an unconstitutional law !y reco"niin" the e+istence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have conse3uences which cannot always !e i"nored( T/,s do-'*,n) on! a,)s as a +a'')* o )%,'! and a,* a!. =n this case, ,' 0as NOT THE $AULT O$ PETITIONER THAT HE LOST HIS OB DUE TO AN ACT O$ ILLEGAL DISMISSAL COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS. To rule otherwise would !e ini3uitous to petitioner and other OD@s, and would in e-ect sent a wron" si"nal that principals/employers and recruitment a"encies may violate an OD@5s security of tenure which an employment contract em!odies and actually pro4t from such violation !ased on an unconstitutional provision of law( #( @O. the taner allowance should !e included in the computation of the ;!asic salary< to !e awarded to Yap YES. T/) 'an4)* ao0an-) o US?13" s/o%d ) ,n-%d)d ,n -o+%',n& '/) %+6s%+ saa*! 'o ) a0a*d)d 'o Ya. #(& @hat are included in ;salary<, ;overtime pay< and ;holiday pay< SALARIES ,n S)-. 1"5F# RA 2"( do)s no' ,n-%d) ov)*',+) and )av) a!. Dor seafarers lie petitioner, )O0E )epartment Order .o( $$, series &*, provides a Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers in which saa*! ,s %nd)*s'ood as BASIC AGE )8-%s,v) o ov)*',+)# )av) a! and o'/)* on%s)s. O>ERTIME PAY : compensation for all wor ;performed< in e+cess of the re"ular 9 hours HOLIDAY PAY : compensation for any wor ;performed< on desi"nated rest days and holidays =n this case, the )+o!+)n' -on'*a-' reveals that the 'an4)* ao0an-) o US?13" AS NOT CATEGORIED AS A BONUS %' *a'/)* )n-as%a')d ,n '/) as,- saa*! -a%s)# /)n-) o*+,n& a*' o '/) as,- saa*! o )',',on)*. 6espondents themselves in their petition for certiorari !efore the CA averred that petitioner5s !asic salary, pursuant to the contract, was ;SF&,$%%(%% G SF&$%(%% taner allowance(< =f respondents intended it di-erently, the contract per se should have indicated that said allowance does not form part of the !asic salary or, simply, the contract should have separated it from the !asic salary clause( $( @hat is the proper computation of the lump2sum salary to !e awarded to Yap !y reason of his ille"al dismissal Ya ,s )n',')d 'o /,s saa*,)s o* '/) ENTIRE UNE;PIRED PORTION O$ HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT -ons,s',n& o 9 +on'/s computed at the rate of SF&,:$% per month(
