Rogelio was engaged by his employer, Free Bulkers, through its agent Evic, as Chief Mate on board the M/V Free Lady for a period of six (6) months with a basic monthly salary of US$1,088.00.
On August 28, 2010, Rogelio boarded the vessel. However, on September 24, 2010, Rogelio was repatriated to the Philippines without completing the contracted employment period.
On September 28, 2010, Rogelio filed an illegal dismissal complaint against his employer. According to Rogelio, the ship captain developed a hostile attitude towards him. Specifically, Rogelio narrated that on September 7, 2010, he took a sip from the small flask of whisky given to him by one of the stevedores he dealt with and went to bed; but the ship captain had him awakened and ordered him to make a report on some damages in the railings of the ship caused by the stevedores. When he submitted the report to the ship captain, the latter allegedly smelled a faint odor of whisky and asked him if he had been drinking, to which Rogelio truthfully replied that he drank a little whisky and was willing to take an alcohol test. The ship captain shrugged off his offer to take an alcohol test, but still made a logbook entry dated September 7, 2010, recommending Rogelio’s immediate replacement.
The employer contended that Rogelio was dismissed for just cause. On the basis of a Crew Behavior Report dated September 8, 2010 prepared by the ship captain, Rogelio was claimed to have violated company policies, instructions, and stipulations of the employment contract:
1) by being grossly negligent since he failed to observe the safety precautions during the mooring and unmooring operations;
2) by displaying arrogance towards his co-employees on board; and
3) by having been found intoxicated.
According to the employer, it feared for the safety of the vessel and determined that the crew may be at risk with Rogelio’s continued presence. Thus, it was constrained to ask that Rogelio be relieved, invoking Section 33 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
Was Rogelio validly dismissed from employment?
The Court ruled in the negative. It declared that Rogelio was illegally dismissed from employment.
The Court reiterated established principles in that in labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a just or authorized cause, and failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. Furthermore, not only must the dismissal be for a cause provided by law, it should also comply with the rudimentary requirements of due process, that is, the opportunity to be heard and to defend one’s self. Hence, for dismissal to be valid, the employer must show through substantial evidence that (1) the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the dismissed employee was afforded due process of law.
In the present case, the Court found that the employer failed to establish the existence of a just cause in the dismissal of Rogelio from employment.
It noted that the Crew Behavior Report, from which Rogelio’s dismissal from employment was based, alleged Rogelio’s inefficiency, incompetence and gross negligence in the performance of his duties.
However, the Court considered the said report sorely inadequate in meeting the required quantum of proof to discharge the employer’s burden.
The Court discussed that incompetence or inefficiency, as a ground for dismissal, means the failure to attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. Neglect of duty, on the other hand, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies a lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the total absence of care in the performance of duties, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference insofar as other persons may be affected. Habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to perform duties in a single or isolated instance.
Here, the Court found that the statements contained in the Crew Behavior Report were uncorroborated and self-serving because no other evidence was presented to support the statements of the ship captain. The Court added that while the report was signed by four (4) crew members, the statements contained therein were based on acts witnessed only by the ship captain.
Specifically, the Court noted the claim of the ship captain that a crew was injured when Rogelio failed to observe safety precautions in the mooring and unmooring operations and that an agent informed him that Rogelio was hard to deal with because of intoxication. However, the Court found no affidavits of either the injured seaman or the concerned agent to corroborate the ship captain’s statements. For the Court, no basis constrained it to conclude that there was truth to the ship captain’s accusations.
The Court found that the employer failed to show that Rogelio willfully or deliberately caused the alleged accident during the mooring operations or that Rogelio repeatedly committed mistakes or repeatedly failed to perform his duties. The Court stated that the single unverified incident on Rogelio’s supposed negligence was insufficient to warrant a finding of just cause for termination.
With regard to the charge of intoxication, the Court applied Section 33 (6) of the POEA-SEC which provides that drunkenness must be committed while on duty to merit dismissal from employment.
In the present case, the Court found that Rogelio was admittedly off duty when he was allegedly caught by the master drinking on board. The Court ruled that the penalty of dismissal from employment was unwarranted.
The Court continued that the lack of just or valid cause of Rogelio’s dismissal was further exacerbated by the employer’s failure to afford Rogelio procedural due process. The Court stressed the two-notice rule in Section 17 of the POEA-SEC in that an erring seaman should be given a written notice of the charge against him and afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; nonetheless, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the findings.
In the present case, the Court found no evidence showing that Rogelio was given a written notice of the charges against him, or that he was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Neither was there proof that Rogelio was furnished with a written notice of the penalty imposed against him and the reasons for its imposition. Although the Court noted the employer’s claim that the required notices were dispensed with because of a clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel, no evidence was presented to prove such was the situation when Rogelio’s employment was terminated.
With the illegality of Rogelio’s dismissal, the employer was held liable to pay Rogelio’s salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022.
Further reading:
- Evic Human Resource Management, Inc. v. Panahon, G.R. No. 206890, July 31, 2017.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
