G.R. No. 175558 ; February 8, 2012
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Skippers Maritime Services, Inc., Ltd., Petitioners, vs. Nathaniel Doza, Napoleon De Gracia, Isidro L. Lata, and Charlie Aprosta, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and its foreign principal deployed respondents-seafarers Napoleon De Gracia, Isidro Lata, and Charlie Aprosta on board the MV Wisdom Star under separate employment contracts. The respondents claimed that Skippers failed to remit their home allotments for several months, prompting them to air grievances through a union. They were subsequently discharged and repatriated on January 28, 1999. Upon arrival, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking payment of their unremitted December 1998 allotment and salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts.
Skippers countered that the seafarers voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts. They presented reports alleging misconduct by De Gracia and a collective demand by the respondents for immediate repatriation. Skippers admitted the non-payment of the December 1998 allotment but sought to offset this liability against the repatriation expenses they incurred, pursuant to POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the seafarers’ complaint, finding the dismissal valid.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding the petitioners liable for illegal dismissal and the consequent monetary awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the employer. The Court held that the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Skippers’ evidence, primarily consisting of unauthenticated telex and fax messages bearing conflicting dates (1998 and 1999), failed to meet the required quantum of proof. These documents were deemed unreliable and insufficient to substantiate the claim of voluntary pre-termination or serious misconduct.
Consequently, the termination was deemed illegal. As the dismissal was unlawful, the petitioners could not invoke POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55 to justify offsetting the allotments against repatriation costs; the provision applies only to seafarers who voluntarily pre-terminate, not to those illegally dismissed. The respondents were thus entitled to their unremitted December 1998 home allotment and salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contracts. The award of attorney’s fees was also upheld as the seafarers were compelled to litigate to protect their rights.