G.R. No. 102310-12 May 20, 1994
KLAVENESS MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and DENHOLM SHIP MANAGEMENT (HK), LTD., petitioners, vs. JOSE MARIUS F. PALMOS and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

G.R. No. 102311 May 20, 1994
KLAVENESS MARITIME AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs. JOSE MARIUS F. PALMOS, ALEXANDER C. SEVILLA and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
G.R. No. 102312 May 20, 1994
KLAVENESS MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and DENHOLM SHIP MANAGEMENT (HK) LTD., petitioners, vs. ALEXANDER C. SEVILLA and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Jose Marius F. Palmos and Alexander C. Sevilla were employed as Able Seamen by petitioner Denholm Ship Management (HK), Ltd. through its local manning agent, co-petitioner Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc., for the M.V. African Camellia under a 12-month contract effective March 23, 1989. On July 7, 1989, they were repatriated to the Philippines from Santos, Brazil, at Klaveness’s expense. Palmos and Sevilla filed complaints for illegal dismissal and wage claims against the petitioners. Petitioners, in turn, filed a complaint for disciplinary action and reimbursement of repatriation expenses against the seamen. The POEA consolidated the cases.
Petitioners claimed that on July 1, 1989, while the vessel was docked at Santos, Brazil, Palmos and Sevilla, returning from shore leave in a state of intoxication and with Palmos wielding a knife, assaulted the vessel’s Chief Officer, Romeo Paredes, without provocation. After an investigation by the captain, they were dismissed and repatriated.
Private respondents countered that on July 1, 1989, at around 7:00 p.m., while returning from shore leave, Chief Officer Paredes angrily scolded them using offensive language for being late. A heated exchange occurred, but cooler heads intervened, and no physical assault took place. At around 11:00 p.m., they were required to disembark and were subsequently repatriated. They denied being drunk, assaulting the officer with a knife, or being late, and claimed they were denied due process.
The POEA ruled in favor of Palmos and Sevilla, finding illegal dismissal. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Petitioners filed the present Petition for Certiorari, claiming the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the POEA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a just or authorized cause for the dismissal of private respondents, thereby constituting illegal dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The evidence, including the Captain’s Report, showed that the dismissal was not based on a thorough and objective investigation but was primarily due to the Chief Officer’s adamant demand that the seamen be dismissed, coupled with the Captain’s desire to avoid sailing delays and retain the Chief Officer for safe manning requirements. The Captain’s decision was based largely on the Chief Officer’s hearsay and self-serving account. Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving a just or authorized cause for dismissal. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. The temporary restraining order previously issued was lifted.