G.R. No. L-65545 July 9, 1986
FIRST ASIAN TRANSPORT & SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, et al., and ELIAS RAMOS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner First Asian Transport and Shipping Agency, Inc., a manning agency, hired respondent seamen for the vessel M/V “Fukutoku Maru.” Their contracts included an affidavit wherein the seamen promised not to seek assistance from the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF). In January 1978, the vessel docked in Melbourne, Australia. An ITF official boarded, discovered the crew’s wages were below ITF standards, and demanded adjustment, leading to a work stoppage. The ship’s representatives acquiesced, paying wage differentials. Subsequently, three seamen disembarked in Australia. Later, in Spain, the shipowner dismissed and repatriated the remaining crew. The petitioner and shipowner then filed a complaint with the National Seamen Board (NSB) to recover the wage differentials paid in Australia.
The NSB Executive Director initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the seamen to return the excess wages and suspending them from the registry. The seamen appealed to the NSB Board proper. On April 24, 1981, the NSB Board reversed the Executive Director, upholding the wage adjustment and ordering payment of the unexpired contract balances to the seamen. This resolution was not served. The NSB was abolished on May 1, 1982, with its functions transferred to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA discovered and finally served the resolution in February 1983. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the POEA, which treated it as an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC denied it for procedural defects—filing only two instead of ten copies and non-payment of the appeal fee.

ISSUE

Whether the National Seamen Board (NSB) Board proper had jurisdiction to render its resolution after its abolition and whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal on purely procedural grounds.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NSB Board’s resolution and set aside the NLRC’s dismissal. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the NSB Board properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction when it rendered the resolution on April 24, 1981, as this was before its abolition on May 1, 1982. The subsequent delay in service did not invalidate the resolution; the POEA, as the NSB’s successor, properly effected service. On the merits, the Court upheld the wage adjustment agreement. It found no evidence the seamen solicited ITF assistance or employed duress; the ITF’s intervention was independent. The work stoppage resulted from the ITF’s action, not the crew’s unilateral decision, aligning with precedent. Thus, the agreement for ITF rates was valid.
Regarding the NLRC’s dismissal, the Court found grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner, upon service of the old NSB resolution, diligently inquired with the POEA on the proper remedy and was advised to file a motion for reconsideration with the POEA Adjudication Office. The petitioner complied, and the POEA even conducted hearings. For the NLRC to later dismiss the matter on technicalities, despite the unique transitional circumstances and the petitioner’s demonstrated good faith in following official advice, was unjust. The NLRC’s rigid application of its rules under these conditions defeated substantial justice. The Court modified the award, excluding seamen earlier dropped from the complaint and adjusting allotments for those who disembarked voluntarily.