G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997
Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Winefredo Z. Sua, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc., a local manning agent, employed private respondent Winefredo Z. Sua as a radio officer on board the M/V Singa Wilstream from November 28, 1988 to September 1989. On July 27, 1989, while the vessel was anchored in Los Angeles, California, Sua and some crew members returned late from shore leave. The ship captain reprimanded them, leading Sua, who was drunk, to shout invectives at the captain, including, “Fuck your ass, captain! I don’t want to sail with you!” Later, Sua struck the bosun with an air pistol handle after a confrontation in the mess hall. Subsequently, Sua was seen lowering his bag to a bunker barge and leaving the ship, stating, “Sorry, but I don’t want to sail with the captain!” The ship was placed on “off-hire” for two days until a replacement radio officer arrived. Petitioner filed a complaint with the POEA for desertion, insubordination, and grave abuse of authority, seeking reimbursement for replacement costs and off-hire expenses. Private respondent filed a counterclaim for unpaid salaries and benefits, alleging the captain abused his authority. The POEA found Sua voluntarily resigned, ordering him to pay petitioner U.S. $3,232.00 for repatriation costs and ordering petitioner to pay Sua U.S. $2,463.58 for unpaid benefits, with the amounts offset. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision, deleting the award of repatriation costs to petitioner, finding Sua was dismissed, not a deserter. Petitioner sought annulment of the NLRC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in ruling that private respondent Winefredo Z. Sua did not desert the vessel and in deleting the award of repatriation costs in favor of petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision. The Court held that desertion in maritime law requires an unauthorized absence from the ship with the intention not to return (animo non revertendi). The words and actions of private respondent, while indicating anger and conflict with the captain, did not unequivocally establish a firm intention to abandon his job permanently. The totality of circumstances showed he was ordered to disembark by the captain, which he interpreted as a dismissal. The Court agreed with the NLRC’s finding that Sua was dismissed for a valid cause—his acts constituted gross disrespect and insubordination—but such dismissal did not make him liable for repatriation costs under the POEA contract, as the provision on liability for early termination applies only to voluntary resignation. The award of unpaid benefits for work rendered prior to dismissal was upheld. The petition was dismissed.