G.R. No. 119080 April 14, 1998
SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC., AND ROYAL CRUISE LINE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARIO SANGIL, respondents.

FACTS

On May 22, 1990, respondent Mario Sangil signed a 12-month employment contract with petitioner Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc., for its foreign principal Royal Cruise Line, to work as a utility man/assistant steward on board the vessel Crown Odyssey. On June 2, 1990, he left to join the vessel. On July 20, 1990, in Stockholm, Sweden, a heated argument and scuffle occurred between Sangil and Greek deck steward Athanasius “Thanasi” Zakkas. Zakkas pushed Sangil, causing him to fall and hit his head against a steel door molding, suffering a cut that required stitches. Sangil reported the incident to the Philippine Embassy. Fearing for his safety due to ongoing animosity between Filipino and Greek crew and prior threats from Zakkas, and having received no protection from the Greek ship captain to whom he had previously complained, Sangil left the vessel. He was repatriated on July 24, 1990. On March 6, 1991, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of wages for the unexpired portion of his contract. The POEA dismissed the complaint, finding he voluntarily signed off. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the POEA, ordering petitioners to pay Sangil his salary for the unexpired ten months (US$500) plus attorney’s fees. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that Mario Sangil was constructively dismissed and is entitled to payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the NLRC decision. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The evidence, including the ship’s Logbook Abstract which stated Sangil was “pushed and fell down,” supported the finding that he was a victim, not the aggressor. His decision to leave the ship was not voluntary but was impelled by a legitimate and well-founded fear for his life and limb, given the physical altercation, prior threats, the hostile environment, and the lack of protection from the ship captain. This constituted constructive dismissal, defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, or due to an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain. Therefore, petitioners were jointly and severally liable to pay Sangil US$500.00 representing his salary for the unexpired ten-month contract period, plus ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees.