G.R. No. 169434; March 28, 2008
LAZARO V. DACUT, CESARIO G. CAJOTE, ROMERLO F. TUNGALA, LOWEL Z. ZUBISTA, and ORLANDO P. TABOY, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, STA. CLARA INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, and NICANDRO LINAO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were crew members of the LCT “BASILISA,” owned by respondent Sta. Clara International Transport and Equipment Corporation. In 1998, a hole was discovered in the vessel’s engine room and was patched. Subsequently, petitioners Dacut and Tungala resigned in July 1999, claiming the vessel was unseaworthy and that they were promised separation pay. Petitioner Cajote, after taking leave for eye treatment and incurring unauthorized absences, resigned in June 1999, allegedly to avoid being charged as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) after being told he would be replaced. Petitioners Zubista and Taboy remained employed but joined the complaint.
On September 22, 1999, petitioners filed a complaint for constructive dismissal (except Zubista and Taboy), underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, rest days, sick and vacation leaves, night shift differentials, subsistence allowance, and overtime pay, among others. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the constructive dismissal claim but ordered payment of holiday pay, accrued sick/vacation leaves, and wage differential for Zubista. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the Labor Arbiter erred in admitting the company’s reply after the case was submitted for decision; (2) whether Dacut, Tungala, and Cajote were constructively dismissed or voluntarily resigned; and (3) whether petitioners were entitled to their other monetary claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that labor officials are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure; the Labor Arbiter may admit additional pleadings to ascertain facts, provided substantial justice is served. No reversible error was committed.
On constructive dismissal, the Court ruled that resignation must be voluntary and without coercion. For Dacut and Tungala, their fear of unseaworthiness was unfounded as the vessel was certified seaworthy; their resignation was thus voluntary. For Cajote, his pattern of unauthorized absences constituted just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code; his resignation to avoid an AWOL charge was also deemed voluntary. Constructive dismissal requires a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer making continued employment intolerable, which petitioners failed to prove.
Regarding monetary claims, the Court upheld the grant of holiday pay, accrued leave credits, and wage differential for Zubista due to sufficient evidence. However, claims for overtime pay and night shift differentials were denied. The Court reiterated that for shipboard personnel, the entitlement to such benefits depends on proof of actual work rendered beyond regular hours, not merely being on board the vessel. Petitioners failed to submit sufficient proof that overtime or night shift work was actually performed. Thus, other claims were correctly dismissed for lack of substantiation.