G.R. No. 119320 March 13, 1998
OCEAN EAST AGENCY CORP., EUROPEAN NAVIGATION, INC. & STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC-FIRST DIVISION), and CAPT. PEPITO M. GUCOR, respondents.

FACTS

On September 28, 1991, respondent Capt. Pepito M. Gucor was hired by petitioner Ocean East Agency Corp., the manning agent of co-petitioner European Navigation, Inc., as master of M/V “Alpine” for one year. In February 1992, while the vessel was anchored in Cuba, respondent was informed of his repatriation for transfer to another vessel. Perceiving this as an insult, he refused to leave unless his full benefits were accorded, believing the cause for repatriation was unreasonable. Petitioners advised him the repatriation was solely for documentation purposes and his services were not terminated. On February 29, 1992, after his demands were settled, he agreed to be repatriated. Petitioners alleged that due to his refusal, they were compelled to assign another master to the newly-acquired MV “Havre de Grace” and that he later missed an assignment to MV “Eleptheria-K.” Petitioners terminated his services on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience. The POEA Administrator dismissed his complaint for illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the POEA, ordering petitioners to pay complainant his benefits for the unexpired portion of his contract.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the transfer clause of the Standard Employment Contract (SEC) is violative of Article 34(i) of the Labor Code. A related issue is whether respondent was illegally dismissed on the ground of willful disobedience.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the transfer clause of the SEC is not violative of Article 34(i) of the Labor Code. The transfer clause, deemed incorporated into the original contract, allows transfer provided it is to any vessel owned or operated by the same employer accredited to the same manning agent, and the crewmember’s rating, wages, and terms of service are not inferior. The approval of the Secretary of Labor is not necessary for such transfer. The Court further ruled that respondent was validly dismissed for willful disobedience. Petitioners’ order for repatriation and transfer was lawful, reasonable, sufficiently known to the employee, and connected with his duties. Respondent’s defiance caused serious prejudice to the employer’s business. The Court granted the petition, vacated the NLRC decision, and reinstated the resolution of the POEA Administrator.