G.R. No. 153031 December 14, 2006
PCL SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. and U-MING MARINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and STEVE RUSEL, respondents.

FACTS

Steve Rusel was employed as a seaman by PCL Shipping for its foreign principal, U-Ming Marine. On July 16, 1996, while working aboard the MV Cemtex General, Rusel slipped and suffered a broken/sprained ankle. His request for medical examination was denied by the vessel’s captain. On August 13, 1996, due to unbearable pain, Rusel jumped off the vessel and swam to shore, where he was hospitalized for eight days. He was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines. Rusel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
Petitioners contended that Rusel deserted his employment by jumping ship, constituting a valid ground for dismissal. They presented logbook entries and a Marine Note Protest as evidence of desertion, albeit belatedly during the appeal. Alternatively, they invoked their contractual right to pre-terminate employment under the POEA Standard Contract.

ISSUE

Whether Rusel was illegally dismissed, entitling him to monetary awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Rusel was illegally dismissed. The petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of desertion. Desertion requires a clear intent to abandon one’s duty and sever the employer-employee relationship. Rusel’s act of jumping ship was a desperate measure to seek medical attention after his legitimate request was denied, not an act of abandonment. The belated submission of the logbook and Marine Note Protest was correctly disregarded, as these documents were not formally offered in evidence before the Labor Arbiter, violating the rule that evidence must be formally offered to be considered.
The Court also rejected the alternative defense of valid pre-termination under the POEA contract. This defense, raised only on appeal, was deemed a mere afterthought. The employer’s prerogative to pre-terminate must be exercised in good faith and for authorized causes, which petitioners failed to establish. Consequently, the dismissal was unjustified.
Regarding monetary awards, the Court modified the computations. The award for three months’ salary was reduced, as the base figure should be the basic salary only, excluding allowances. However, Rusel was entitled to his earned wages and other contractual benefits for the unserved portion of his contract due to the illegal dismissal. Attorney’s fees were properly awarded, as Rusel was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.