GR 160338; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160338 ; October 6, 2008
VENTIS MARITIME CORPORATION and BELSALLY SHIPPING, S.A., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AGAPITO C. AGONCILLO, JR., respondents.
FACTS
On January 8, 1998, Ventis Maritime Corporation hired Agapito C. Agoncillo, Jr. as a Third Officer for its principal Belsally Shipping, S.A., with a ten-month contract. On June 24, 1998, the vessel MV Orchid Bridge docked in Manila. Respondent asked and was granted permission by the vessel’s Master to disembark to visit his hospitalized wife, on the condition that he rejoin the vessel on July 2, 1998. Two days before this date, respondent informed Ventis he could not rejoin the vessel due to his wife’s condition. He was replaced. On July 24, 1998, Ventis filed a complaint for disciplinary action against respondent before the POEA. Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent was not illegally dismissed but had failed to rejoin the vessel, awarding only his accrued benefits until June 24, 1998. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding illegal dismissal and ordering payment of salaries for the unexpired contract portion, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners illegally dismissed respondent from employment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court held that respondent was not illegally dismissed but had abandoned his post. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, which were more in accord with the records, showed that respondent voluntarily disembarked and then failed to return to the vessel as agreed, without seeking an extension of leave under the applicable CBA provision for dangerous illness. The Court noted that Ventis had filed a POEA complaint against respondent for abandonment prior to respondent filing his illegal dismissal case, and the POEA had found respondent liable for abandonment, a decision which became final. Therefore, there was no valid dismissal to speak of, but rather a separation by respondent’s own doing. The award was limited to unpaid salary and accrued benefits for June 1998.