In case of illegal dismissal, how much is a seafarer entitled to receive from his employers? His salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or his salaries for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less?
The r ruling of the Supreme Court
in the case of Antonio M. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.
and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009) has
brought clarity and definitiveness to the issue of entitlement to
benefits of a seafarer in case he is illegallydismissed. It made certain
that the seafarer should receive his salaries for the entire unexpired
portion of his contract, and not just for three months.
In the said Serrano case, the
petitioner-seafarer was hired as Chief Officer for a period of 12
months. On the date of his departure however, he accepted the downgraded
post of Second Officer upon the assurance of his employers that he
would be made Chief Officer in less than two months. His employers
however, reneged on their commitment, resulting to petitioner-seafarer’s
refusal to stay on as Second Officer. He was then repatriated to the
Philippines after less than three months of work. Formally complaining
to the Labor Arbiter, the latter, among others, declared his dismissal
as illegal but only awarded petitioner-seafarer a lump sum amount based
on his salary for three months of the unexpired portion of his contract.
On appeal, the petitioner-seafarer
eventually questioned the constitutionality of the 5th paragraph of
Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042 (otherwise known as the “Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”) which took effect on July
15, 1995. It reads: “Sec.10. Money Claims.-xxx In case of termination of
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined
by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%)
per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or FOR THREE (3) MONTHS FOR EVERY YEAR OF THE
UNEXPIRED TERM, WHICHEVER IS LESS” (underscoring supplied)The
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sustained in principle the
Labor Arbiter’s decision although it modified the computation of the
award.
The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed
the NLRC decision. The Supreme Court took the side of the
petitioner-seafarer by affirming the illegality of his dismissal and
awarded him his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his
employment contract covering nine months and 23 days.
Moreover, in an unparalleled initiative,
exercising its power of judicial review of the acts of Congress, the
Supreme Court declared the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042 as
violative of Section 1, Article III (right to due process and equal
protection), Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII
(protection of rights of all Filipino workers, whether deployed locally
or overseas) of the Constitution. The High Court observed that the
questioned clause has a discriminatory intent against overseas Filipino
workers (OFWs) at two levels, i.e., OFWs with employment contracts of
LESS THAN 1 YEAR vis-à-vis OFWs with contracts of ONE YEAR OR MORE, and
OFWs vis-a-vis local workers with fixed-period employment. The clause
only limits the monetary awards of OFWs, whose contracts have an
unexpired portion of one year or more, to their salaries for three
months or for the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but does
not bother OFWs with unexpired contracts short of one year.
The Court concluded “….the subject
clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of
the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally
dismissed, it imposes a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an
unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on
the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment.
The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it
with a peculiar disadvantage” (underscoring supplied). The Court
likewise added that the clause violates the petitioner-seafarer’s right
to substantive due process for it deprives him of property, consisting
of monetary benefits without any existing valid governmental purpose.
With the above ruling, the Supreme Court has reverted to the old,
simple, and logical manner by which claims of illegally dismissed OFWs
are computed, i.e., their basic salaries multiplied by the entire
unexpired portions of their contracts, and accordingly disregarded any
distinction relating to the OFWs’ contract periods or the unexpired
portions thereof.
Article of Atty. Augusto R. Bundang originally published in the May-June 2009 issue of Tinig ng Marino
