In most labor cases, the Supreme Court stressed that courts and quasi-judicial bodies must avoid making narrow interpretations of the law by disregarding the “social justice
provisions” of the labor laws. It said that “in carrying
out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing
regulations, the employee's welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration.[1]
This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code
which states that "[a]ll doubts in the implementation and interpretation
of the provisions of [the Labor] Code including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor," and Article 1702 of the
Civil Code which provides that "[i]n case of doubt, all labor legislation
and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent
living for the laborer".[2)
The Supreme Court likewise expounded this
principle by saying that "a strict interpretation of the cold facts before
us might support the position taken by the companies. However, we
are dealing here not with an ordinary transaction but with a labor contract
which deserves special treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of the
worker xxx the Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the
sympathetic concern of the State for the working class conformably to the
social justice policy xxx Under the policy of social justice, the law bends
over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane
justification that those with less privileges in life should have more
privileges in law xxx".[3]
The standard employment contract for seafarers
was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247 to
"secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract
workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect
the well-being of Filipino workers overseas." Section 29 of the 1996 POEA
SEC itself provides that "all rights and obligations of the parties to the
Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants
where the Philippines is a signatory."[4]
It
is relevant to state that the POEA standard employment contract is designed
primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of
their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must, therefore,
be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor or for the
benefit of the seamen and their dependents. Only then can its beneficent
provisions be fully carried into effect”. [5]
Employment contracts of seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels are
not ordinary contracts. They are regulated and an imprimatur by the State is
necessary. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual
agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be
integrated in every seafarer’s contract.[6]
Courts are called upon to be vigilant in their time-honored duty to protect
labor, especially in cases of disability or ailment. When applied to Filipino
seafarer, the perilous nature of their work is considered in determining the
proper benefits to be awarded. These benefits, at the very least, should
approximate the risks they brave on board the vessel every single day.[7]
[5] Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. v. NLRC, 405 Phil. 487, 495; Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 376 Phil. 738, 749 (1999).
[6] Inter-Orient Maritime,
Incorporated v. Candava, G.R. No. 201251, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 174
[7] Seagull Maritime Corporation
v. Dee , 520 SCRA 109.
No comments:
Post a Comment