GR 138193; (March, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138193; March 5, 2003
OSM SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Third Division) and FERMIN F. GUERRERO, respondents.
FACTS
Fermin F. Guerrero was hired by OSM Shipping Philippines, Inc. for its principal, Philippine Carrier Shipping Agency Services Co., to serve as Master Mariner on the vessel MN ‘Princess Hoa’ for ten months. He boarded the vessel in July 1994 but was not paid any salary or compensation for seven months, forcing him to disembark in January 1995. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits. OSM defended that the shipowner changed the vessel’s use from overseas to coastwise trade, leading to its conversion to Philippine registry and a bareboat charter to a new entity. OSM argued this constituted a novation of the employment contract, transferring employer liability to the new charterer.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Guerrero’s favor, finding constructive dismissal and ordering OSM and its principal to pay his monetary claims. The NLRC affirmed with modification. OSM filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it outright for procedural defects, specifically for attaching a mere machine copy of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision instead of a duplicate original or certified true copy, and for not indicating Guerrero’s complete address.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition based on procedural grounds, and whether the change in the vessel’s use and ownership novated the employment contract, absolving OSM of liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC Decision. On procedure, the Court held that the Rules of Court do not require all supporting documents in a certiorari petition to be duplicate originals or certified true copies; a legible copy suffices unless the questioned document is central to the petition. Here, the assailed NLRC Decision, not the Labor Arbiter’s, was properly attached. The omission of Guerrero’s address was also not fatal as his counsel’s address was indicated. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the unilateral decision by the shipowner to alter the vessel’s use and register it under a new entity did not novate Guerrero’s employment contract. Novation requires the consent of all parties, including the employee. Guerrero’s contract, validly executed and approved by the POEA, remained binding. OSM, as the licensed manning agency, is jointly and solidarily liable with its principal for all claims under the contract. Workers cannot be prejudiced by employers’ unilateral actions. Thus, OSM is liable for Guerrero’s unpaid salaries and benefits.