G.R. No. 189314 June 15, 2011
MIGUEL DELA PENA BARAIRO, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. Respondent.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Chief Justice
Footnotes
MIGUEL DELA PENA BARAIRO, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Miguel Barairo (petitioner) was hired1
on June 29, 2004 by respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.) Inc., (MST)
for its principal, TSM International, Ltd., as Chief Mate of the vessel
Maritina, for a contract period of six months. He boarded the vessel
and discharged his duties on July 23, 2004, but was relieved2 on August 28, 2004 ostensibly for transfer to another vessel, Solar. Petitioner thus disembarked in Manila on August 29, 2004.
Petitioner was later to claim that he was not paid
the promised "stand-by fee" in lieu of salary that he was to receive
while awaiting transfer to another vessel as in fact the transfer never
materialized.
On October 20, 2004, petitioner signed a new Contract of Employment3
for a six-month deployment as Chief Mate in a newly-built Japanese
vessel, M/T Haruna. He was paid a one-month "standby fee" in connection
with the Maritina contract.
Petitioner boarded the M/T Haruna on October 31, 2004
but he disembarked a week later as MST claimed that his boarding of M/T
Haruna was a "sea trial" which, MST maintains, was priorly made known
to him on a "stand-by" fee. MST soon informed petitioner that he would
be redeployed to the M/T Haruna on November 30, 2004, but petitioner
refused, prompting MST to file a complaint4 for breach of contract against him before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Petitioner claimed, however, that he was placed on
"forced vacation" when he was made to disembark from the M/T Haruna, and
that not wanting to experience a repetition of the previous
"termination" of his employment aboard the Maritina, he refused to be
redeployed to the M/T Haruna.
By Order5
of April 5, 2006, then POEA Administrator Rosalinda D. Baldoz penalized
petitioner with one year suspension from overseas deployment upon a
finding that his refusal to complete his contract aboard the M/T Haruna
constituted a breach thereof.
On appeal by petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, by Order6
of September 22, 2006, noting that it was petitioner’s first offense,
modified the POEA Order by shortening the period of suspension from one
year to six months.
The Office of the President (OP), by Decision7 of November 26, 2007, dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma.8
The OP held that appeals to it in labor cases, except
those involving national interest, have been eliminated. Petitioner’s
motion for partial reconsideration was denied by Resolution9 of June 26, 2009, hence, the present petition.
Following settled jurisprudence, the proper remedy to
question the decisions or orders of the Secretary of Labor is via
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not via an appeal to the OP. For
appeals to the OP in labor cases have indeed been eliminated, except
those involving national interest over which the President may assume
jurisdiction. The rationale behind this development is mirrored in the
OP’s Resolution of June 26, 2009 the pertinent portion of which reads:
. . . [T] he assailed DOLE’s Orders were both issued by Undersecretary Danilo P. Cruz under the authority of the DOLE Secretary who is the alter ego of the President.
Under the "Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency," a corollary rule to
the control powers of the President, all executive and administrative
organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the
various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by
Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation
demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and
through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of
such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.10 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It cannot be gainsaid that petitioner’s case does not involve national interest.
Petitioner’s appeal of the Secretary of Labor’s
Decision to the Office of the President did not toll the running of the
period, hence, the assailed Decisions of the Secretary of Labor are
deemed to have attained finality.
Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial
process, it has been held, time and again, that the right thereto is not
a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory
privilege. Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within
the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory.
Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case
irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court -
not even the Supreme Court - has the power to revise, review, change or
alter the same. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on
the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at
the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of
quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by
law.11 (underscoring in the original, emphasis supplied)1avvphi1
At all events, on the merits, the petition just the same fails.
As found by the POEA Administrator and the Secretary
of Labor, through Undersecretary Danilo P. Cruz, petitioner’s refusal to
board the M/T Haruna on November 30, 2004 constituted unjustified
breach of his contract of employment under Section 1 (A-2) Rule II, Part
VI [sic] of the POEA Seabased Rules and Regulations.12
That petitioner believed that respondent company violated his rights
when the period of his earlier Maritina contract was not followed and
his "stand-by fees" were not fully paid did not justify his refusal to
abide by the valid and existing Haruna contract requiring him to serve
aboard M/T Haruna. For, as noted in the assailed DOLE Order, "if
petitioner’s rights has been violated as he claims, he has various
remedies under the contract which he did not avail of."
Parenthetically, the Undersecretary of Labor declared
that "the real reason [petitioner] refused to re-join Haruna on
November 30, 2004, is that he left the Philippines on November 29, 2004
to join MT Adriatiki, a vessel of another manning agency," which
declaration petitioner has not refuted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice |
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
RENATO C. CORONAChief Justice
Footnotes
1 Vide Contract of Employment, rollo, p. 110.
2 Id. at 112.
3 Ibid.
4 Vide Complaint-Affidavit of Captain Alfonso R. del Castillo, id. at 113-114.
5 Id. at 132-134.
6 Id. at 174-177. Penned by Undersecretary Danilo P. Cruz.
7 Id. at 55-66. Penned by Undersecretary Pilita P. Quizon-Venturanza.
8 G.R. No. 123426, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 405.
9 Rollo, pp. 105-108. Penned by Undersecretary Pilita P. Quizon-Venturanza.
10 Vide June 26, 2009 Resolution of the Office of the President, id. at 105-108 at 107.
11 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 190660, April 11, 2011 citing Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. v. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co., et al., G.R. No. 143275, 399 SCRA 376, 385.
12 RULE II - Disciplinary Action Against Seafarers
SECTION 1. Grounds for Disciplinary Action and their
Penalties. — Commission by a seafarer of any of the offenses enumerated
below or of similar offenses shall be a ground for disciplinary action
for which the corresponding penalty shall be imposed:
A. Pre-Employment Offenses
1. Submission/furnishing or using false information
or documents or any form of misrepresentation for purpose of job
application or employment.
1st Offense: One year to two years suspension from participation in the overseas employment program
2nd Offense: Two years and one day suspension from
participation in the overseas employment program to Delisting from the
POEA Registry
2. Unjust refusal to join ship after all employment
and travel documents have been duly approved by the appropriate
government agencies.
1st Offense: One year to two years suspension from participation in the overseas employment program
2nd offense: Two years and one day suspension from
participation in the overseas employment program to Delisting from the
POEA Registry (emphasis supplied)
No comments:
Post a Comment