G.R. No. 112100 May 27, 1994
EDWARD R. RETA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ARPAPHIL SHIPPING CORPORATION, TARPON SHIPPING CO. and LUZON SURETY CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edward R. Reta was hired as Second Officer on board the M.V. “Bulk Tupaz” by respondent Arpaphil Shipping Corp., the manning agent of respondent Tarpon Shipping Company, for a 12-month period effective December 3, 1990. During his employment, petitioner committed several infractions: on December 11, 1990, he was caught watching television instead of being at his post; on December 12, he failed to take proper positions of the vessel; on December 18, he forgot to take sun observation and made a wrong logbook entry; on December 26, he refused to work overtime. More serious infractions included: on December 27, his faulty maneuvering nearly caused a collision; on January 1, 1991, he left his watch during fuel loading; and on January 8, he let loose a mooring line, causing the vessel to move away from the berth. Due to these infractions, which demonstrated insubordination, incompetence, and inefficiency, the master of the vessel discharged petitioner on February 27, 1991, while docked at Pireau, Greece. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the POEA, which dismissed his petition, a decision affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the POEA decision that found petitioner’s dismissal to have been for a legal cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the findings of the POEA and NLRC that petitioner’s dismissal was for a just cause, based on the series of infractions he committed, which constituted incompetence and conduct prejudicial to the vessel’s safety under his employment contract. The Court upheld the factual findings of the administrative agencies. However, the Court found that while there was a valid ground for dismissal, the employer failed to comply with the due process requirements under Article 277 of the Labor Code, as amended. Petitioner was not given written notice of the charges or afforded a formal investigation and hearing to defend himself. As a consequence, and considering petitioner was dismissed in a foreign port, the Court modified the NLRC decision and ordered private respondents to pay petitioner P10,000.00 as a penalty for failure to observe due process. The decision of the NLRC was affirmed with this modification.