G.R. No. 91122 March 16, 1992
DIONY RAPIZ, NELSON GESTOPA & ANATALIO ONA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MODERN ASIA SHIPPING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, Filipino seamen, were hired by private respondent Modern Asia Shipping Corporation in June 1983 and boarded the M/V Mighty Sea. Their contracts expired on November 6, 1983, but they were not repatriated and were stranded at the port of Thessaloniki, Greece. They claimed non-payment of salaries for ten months, lack of food and light, and sought help through letters to Philippine authorities dated March 15, 1984, and May 2, 1984. In the May 2 letter, they mentioned an agreement with a Greek lawyer and the charterer for a 30% deduction from their salaries to secure payment, stating this would affect their ability to remit the full required foreign currency. They were repatriated on July 19, 1984, and executed a joint affidavit-complaint against Modern Asia for breach of contract, alleging they never received any salary or allowances. After over two years, citing unfulfilled promises of rehire by the agency, nine seamen, including petitioners, filed a formal complaint with the POEA seeking recovery of unpaid wages (11 months’ salaries for petitioners: Gestopa at US$450/month, Rapiz and Ona at US$160/month), food supplies, living expenses, lawyer’s fees, and damages. The POEA, in its decision dated April 4, 1988, awarded the eleven months’ salaries but disallowed other claims. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC, contending the seamen had been paid, citing the May 2, 1984 letter as proof. The NLRC Second Division, in a split resolution dated September 29, 1989, reversed the POEA, finding the letter indicated payment was received. Presiding Commissioner Daniel M. Lucas, Jr. dissented, voting to affirm the POEA. The NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration, maintaining the split vote. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners have already received their salaries.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners had not received their salaries. The petition was granted. The NLRC resolution dated September 29, 1989, was reversed and set aside, and the POEA decision dated April 4, 1988, was affirmed and reinstated.
The Court found the POEA’s decision, which awarded the eleven months’ salaries, to be the result of diligent and impartial analysis. It scrutinized the entire record, noting the NLRC’s reversal relied solely on the May 2, 1984, letter, which merely indicated an agreement for deductions if payment was secured, not proof of actual payment. The Solicitor General’s office also declined to defend the NLRC’s decision. The Court emphasized that private respondent failed to present any evidence, such as receipts or proof from the Greek lawyer, to substantiate its claim of payment, despite being given opportunities to do so. The dissenting opinion of NLRC Presiding Commissioner Lucas, which favored the POEA decision, was noted. Costs were imposed on private respondent.