G.R. No. L-79891 September 26, 1988
AURELIO M. DE VERA, petitioner, vs. C. F. SHARP & CO., INC., AGENCIA MARITIMA ARTIACH and HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aurelio M. de Vera was hired by Agencia Maritima Artiach (AMAZSA) through its local agent, C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc., as Second Engineer aboard the “MV Holstensailor” for a ten-month contract. On February 5, 1986, upon the vessel’s return to New York, the entire Filipino crew, including de Vera, was discharged. The reason given was the change of the vessel’s registry from Panamanian to German, a requirement imposed by German shipping authorities. De Vera was repatriated to the Philippines, with US$1,000 deducted from his salary for repatriation costs.
De Vera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA ruled in his favor, ordering the respondents to pay his salary for the unexpired contract portion and repatriation expenses. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the POEA and dismissed the complaint. The NLRC credited private respondents’ claim that de Vera was not dismissed due to the change of registry but because he refused to continue working unless given a salary increase, as allegedly shown in telex exchanges between AMAZSA and C.F. Sharp.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Aurelio M. de Vera was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that de Vera was illegally dismissed. The Court reversed the NLRC decision and reinstated the POEA’s ruling. The legal logic centers on the determination of the actual cause of termination. The Court found that the preponderance of evidence established the change of vessel registry as the real cause, not the seaman’s alleged refusal to work.
The Court gave greater weight to several objective pieces of evidence over the self-serving telex messages between the principal and the agent. First, AMAZSA’s own telex of January 23, 1986, informed its agent that the Filipino crew was being sent home due to German authorities’ requirements. Second, de Vera’s Seaman’s Continuous Discharge Book, a crucial document for future employment, explicitly stated “changed flag” as the cause of discharge. Third, his airplane ticket for repatriation was issued as early as January 27, 1986, before the vessel even arrived in New York and before the alleged salary negotiations.
The Court found no conclusive evidence that de Vera was formally offered retention or that he made a salary demand a precondition for staying. The telex exchanges did not directly involve de Vera, and there was no proof these communications were relayed to him while at sea. The NLRC’s reliance on this unsubstantiated claim constituted a grave abuse of discretion, as it misappreciated material facts affecting the case’s outcome. Since a change in vessel registry is not a valid or authorized cause for dismissal under labor laws and the employment contract, the termination was illegal. The employer’s subsequent justification was an afterthought unsupported by the evidence.