G.R. No. L-65284 October 14, 1985
PHILGRECIAN MARITIME SERVICES AND TRANS-OCEAN STEAMSHIP AGENCY, INC., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ANTONIO P. MALLARI, ELPIDIO ALONZO, AND APOLONIO PEREN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are Trans-Ocean Steamship Agency, Inc., the foreign operator of the MV “KARIN VATIS,” and its local manning agent, Philgrecian Maritime Services. Private respondents are Filipino seamen employed under one-year contracts. Prior to their dispatch, petitioners sent a telex advising that the crew would join the vessel with old salaries but would receive retroactive differentials once a new Greek collective bargaining agreement was finalized. The seamen boarded on March 2, 1982. While in Australia, they demanded payment of these differentials. Following intervention by the International Transport Federation (ITF), the vessel’s master paid the differentials. However, a week later, he demanded the money back, threatening termination and repatriation upon refusal. The seamen refused. Subsequently, on June 30, 1982, they were disembarked in Egypt and repatriated to Manila. They then filed a complaint with the POEA for illegal dismissal, seeking payment of their salaries for the unexpired contract period and their unpaid monthly allotments for May and June 1982.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the dismissal of the seamen was for a just cause, thereby entitling them to their unpaid allotments and salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC and POEA decisions. The legal logic centered on the absence of just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code. Petitioners claimed the dismissal was due to the seamen’s insubordination and refusal to follow instructions, ostensibly for demanding salary differentials through “outside intervention” (ITF). The Court found this justification untenable. The seamen’s act of claiming the differentials was a legitimate assertion of a right promised in the pre-departure telex, not misconduct. The master’s subsequent demand for the return of the legally paid differentials was itself unlawful. The seamen’s refusal to comply with this unlawful demand cannot constitute willful disobedience or insubordination justifying dismissal. Consequently, the termination was illegal. As illegally dismissed employees, the seamen are entitled to their unpaid allotments earned prior to dismissal and their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts, as mandated by law. The Court also noted the NLRC’s decision was fair, as it only awarded these two specific claims, disregarding other ancillary claims raised by the seamen. No grave abuse of discretion was found in the NLRC’s ruling.