G.R. No. 155338 February 20, 2007
Deogracias Cansino, Petitioner, vs. Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation and Sea Justice, S.A., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Deogracias Cansino was employed as a seaman by respondents under a POEA-approved contract for a 12-month term aboard the M/V Commander. While on board, the ship’s master, Captain Nikolaos Kandylis, unilaterally altered petitioner’s contract, changing his position from seaman to pumpman and increasing his monthly salary from US$674.00 to US$1,164.00. Subsequently, Captain Kandylis received reports of petitioner’s drunkenness, insubordination, and disorderly conduct, which were recorded in the ship’s logbook. On August 10, 1996, petitioner and six other crew members requested and were granted early repatriation due to family problems.
Upon his return to the Philippines, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal valid due to drunkenness. The NLRC reversed this decision, awarding petitioner underpayment and salaries for the unexpired contract period. The Court of Appeals, however, granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, setting aside the NLRC decision and reinstating the validity of the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner’s dismissal from employment was for a valid cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic rests on the evidentiary weight of official ship records and the established just causes for termination under maritime employment. The Court emphasized that a ship’s logbook, which the captain is obligated by law to maintain, is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The Master’s Report and logbook entries substantiated multiple instances of petitioner’s drunkenness and disorderly behavior.
Drunkenness is a specific ground for disciplinary action under Section 2, Rule VII, Book IV of the POEA Rules and is also recognized as serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court cited precedents like Haverton Shipping Ltd. v. NLRC and Seahorse Maritime Corp. v. NLRC, which hold that such misconduct constitutes a just cause for dismissal, negating any entitlement to separation pay or unearned salaries. Petitioner’s bare allegation of the captain’s grudge was unsupported by evidence. Regarding underpayment, the Court found the claim unmeritorious as the unilateral contract alteration, though unapproved by the POEA, actually increased his salary to his benefit. Thus, the dismissal was legal.