G.R. No. 189314 , June 15, 2011
MIGUEL DELA PENA BARAIRO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguel Barairo was hired by respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.) Inc. on June 29, 2004, as Chief Mate of the vessel Maritina for a six-month contract. He boarded on July 23, 2004, but was relieved on August 28, 2004, ostensibly for transfer to another vessel, Solar. He disembarked on August 29, 2004, and later claimed he was not paid the promised “stand-by fee” while awaiting transfer, which never materialized. On October 20, 2004, petitioner signed a new six-month Contract of Employment as Chief Mate for the vessel M/T Haruna and was paid a one-month “standby fee” related to the prior Maritina contract. He boarded the M/T Haruna on October 31, 2004, but disembarked a week later. MST claimed this boarding was a “sea trial” on a “stand-by” fee, and informed petitioner he would be redeployed on November 30, 2004. Petitioner refused, prompting MST to file a complaint for breach of contract before the POEA. Petitioner claimed he was placed on “forced vacation” and refused redeployment to avoid a repeat of the prior termination. The POEA Administrator, by Order of April 5, 2006, penalized petitioner with one-year suspension for breach of contract. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor, by Order of September 22, 2006, modified the penalty to six months’ suspension, noting it was petitioner’s first offense. The Office of the President (OP), by Decision of November 26, 2007, dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing jurisprudence that appeals to the OP in labor cases are eliminated except those involving national interest. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution of June 26, 2009.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the President correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Following settled jurisprudence, the proper remedy to question decisions or orders of the Secretary of Labor is via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal to the OP, as appeals to the OP in labor cases have been eliminated except those involving national interest. The Court affirmed the OP’s application of the “Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency,” noting that the acts of the Secretary of Labor, as an alter ego of the President, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive unless disapproved. The Court found that petitioner’s case does not involve national interest. Consequently, petitioner’s appeal to the OP did not toll the running of the period for appeal, rendering the Secretary of Labor’s Decisions final and executory. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period renders a judgment final. On the merits, the Court also found the petition to fail, upholding the findings of the POEA and the Secretary of Labor that petitioner’s refusal to board the M/T Haruna constituted an unjustified breach of contract under the POEA Rules, and that his claimed grievances did not justify his refusal, as other remedies under the contract were available to him.