G.R. No. 148418 July 28, 2005
PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. and/or Pacific Carriers, Ltd., Petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Ernesto B. Lamique, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ernesto B. Lamique was hired by petitioner PCL Shipping as a Second Officer for a nine-month contract. He alleged that during his employment, he was subjected to abusive and discriminatory treatment by the vessel’s Chief Officer. On January 16, 1996, he was informed his services were no longer needed and he was subsequently repatriated. Lamique filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners countered that Lamique abandoned his duties, citing an incident where he allegedly left the vessel without permission and later refused to work, forcing the Master to serve a notice of termination.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Lamique, ordering petitioners to pay his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract. The NLRC affirmed the monetary award and additionally granted indemnity for violation of due process. The Court of Appeals subsequently reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision and upheld the indemnity award.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) its conduct of the certiorari proceedings; (2) disregarding facts that allegedly justified Lamique’s dismissal; and (3) reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s judgment and awarding indemnity.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the proceedings before the Court of Appeals were not abbreviated. The rules grant the appellate court discretion, after the filing of comments, to either require further pleadings or decide the case based on the submitted records. The petitioners were not deprived of due process as they were able to file their petition and the private respondent his comment.
On the substantive issue, the Court emphasized that in a Rule 45 petition, only questions of law may be raised. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding. These lower tribunals uniformly found that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of abandonment or any just cause for dismissal. The burden of proof rests on the employer to prove a lawful cause for termination, which petitioners did not discharge. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal, warranting payment of salaries for the unexpired contract.
Finally, the award of indemnity in the amount of P10,000 was proper. The NLRC correctly found that Lamique was dismissed without the requisite written notices and hearing, constituting a violation of statutory due process. Such procedural infirmity, even if the dismissal were for a just cause, merits the imposition of nominal damages.