G.R. No. 165935; February 8, 2012
Bright Maritime Corporation (BMC)/Desiree P. Tenorio, Petitioners, vs. Ricardo B. Fantonial, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Ricardo B. Fantonial entered into a POEA-approved employment contract with petitioner Bright Maritime Corporation to work as a boatswain. He underwent a pre-employment medical examination at the company-accredited clinic on January 17, 2000, and was issued a Medical Certificate stamped “FIT TO WORK.” Instructed to depart that same day, he proceeded to the airport where a liaison officer informed him he could not leave due to alleged defects in his medical certificate. Respondent returned to the clinic the next day and was assured by the physician that his certificate was valid. Despite this, petitioners failed to deploy him, instructing him only to wait for a call regarding a new assignment, which never came.
Petitioners contended that respondent was not medically fit for work until January 21, 2000, due to findings of a borderline heart size and a non-infectious Hepatitis B result, rendering him unable to join the vessel which had already departed. They argued the employment contract never commenced under POEA rules, as it begins only upon the seafarer’s actual departure from the point of hire. Thus, they claimed there could be no illegal dismissal. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages.

ISSUE

Whether respondent was illegally dismissed despite not having physically departed the country.

RULING

Yes, respondent was illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that a contract of employment is perfected upon mutual consent, which occurred when the POEA-approved contract was signed. The commencement clause (Section 2 of the POEA Standard Contract) pertains only to the term of the contract’s effectiveness, not its perfection. Petitioners’ failure to deploy respondent constituted a breach of this perfected contract. The Court gave greater weight to the Medical Certificate dated January 17, 2000, declaring him “FIT TO WORK,” over the later affidavit of the physician which petitioners used to justify non-deployment. This document was the best evidence of his fitness at the critical time.
The Court found petitioners acted in bad faith. They assured respondent of his departure, only to strand him at the airport based on a belated medical justification they did not properly communicate or substantiate to him at the time. Their subsequent offer of a different assignment during conciliation did not cure the breach. Consequently, respondent was entitled to payment of his salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract, as well as moral and exemplary damages due to the fraudulent manner in which petitioners reneged on their contractual obligations. The NLRC decision was reversed, and the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal was reinstated with modifications on the damages awarded.