Due Process on dismissal

HOW does due process apply to the employment relationship of Filipino seafarers with their employers?

The POEA Standard Employment Contract and Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code prescribe the standards of due process that must be substantially observed in cases of termination of employment on just causes, i.e., the serving of the first written notice on the employee, which states the ground(s) for termination and which gives the employee the opportunity to explain, the holding of a hearing where the employee may present his evidence, and the serving of the notice of termination, indicating the grounds established to justify the dismissal.

In the case of Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Felicisimo Carilla (G.R. No. 157975, June 26, 2007), the seafarer filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after he was summarily repatriated to the Philippines while the vessel he embarked on was in India. His employer presented mere unauthenticated and unsigned papers and reports to enumerate his alleged acts of incompetence. The Supreme Court found that the said documents have no probative value and that the seafarer was dismissed without due process hence, his claim for the unexpired portion of his contract partially granted.
 
In the case of Joel B. de Jesus vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 151158, Aug. 17, 2007), just barely 3 months from the day he departed from the Philippines and embarked on his vessel, the seafarer was repatriated after he was diagnosed to be suffering from gastric ulcer. After his request for financial assistance and medical treatment was disallowed, he filed a claim for payment of his unpaid salary, sickness allowance, and reimbursement of medical expenses against his employer before the National Labor Relations Commission on the ground that he was illegally discharged.

The Court observed that since the employer did not present proof that: (a) the seafarer breached his employment contract and (b) that the prescribed disciplinary procedures on notice and hearing provided under Section 17 of the POEA SEC were followed, the employer failed to establish its defense of the seafarer’s valid dismissal. As such, the seafarer’s claims for payment were accordingly granted.