Mercidar Fishing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Fermin Agao, Jr. against Mercidar Fishing Corporation for illegal dismissal, violation of P.D. No. 851 (13th month pay), and non-payment of service incentive leave. Agao, Jr., employed as a "bodegero" or ship's quartermaster since February 12, 1988, alleged constructive dismissal when the company refused him assignments after he reported for work on May 28, 1990, following a month's leave of absence without pay. He presented a medical clearance upon his return, but was allegedly told to come back later. Subsequently, the company refused to issue a certificate of employment unless he resigned, and prevented him from entering the premises when he refused without separation pay. Mercidar Fishing Corporation countered that Agao, Jr. abandoned his work, having been absent without leave for three months after his leave expired, and that he was later left behind during a voyage and then refused to accept a certificate of employment without separation pay. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was filed on September 20, 1990. Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec rendered a decision on February 18, 1992, ordering Mercidar Fishing Corporation to reinstate Agao, Jr. with backwages, 13th month pay, and incentive leave pay for 1990, while dismissing other claims. Mercidar Fishing Corporation appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On August 30, 1993, the NLRC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision and rejecting the petitioner's claim that fishermen are "field personnel" not entitled to service incentive leave pay. The NLRC further denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in an order dated October 25, 1993. 3. The Petition: Mercidar Fishing Corporation, represented by its President Domingo B. Naval, filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the NLRC's decision and resolution. The petitioner argues that the NLRC erred in ruling that fishing crew members like Fermin Agao, Jr. cannot be classified as "field personnel" under Article 82 of the Labor Code, thereby entitling them to service incentive leave pay. Additionally, the petitioner contends that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by upholding the Labor Arbiter's finding that Agao, Jr. was constructively dismissed, asserting instead that he abandoned his employment.
Issue(s)
Whether fishing crew members can be classified as "field personnel" under Article 82 of the Labor Code, and therefore not entitled to service incentive leave pay. Whether the respondent Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the finding that the petitioner constructively dismissed the private respondent.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of fishermen as "field personnel": The Court reiterated the definition of "field personnel" under Article 82 of the Labor Code, emphasizing that their actual hours of work in the field must not be determinable with reasonable certainty. It clarified that Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules, which mentions "unsupervised" employees, merely interprets and expounds on the "reasonable certainty" clause, rather than adding a new element. The Court distinguished the situation of fishermen from sales personnel whose field work hours might be difficult to ascertain. In contrast, fishermen employed by petitioner remain on board the vessel throughout their voyage, under the effective control and supervision of the employer through the vessel's patron or master. Therefore, they cannot be classified as "field personnel" and are entitled to service incentive leave pay. On the finding of constructive dismissal: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in upholding the Labor Arbiter's finding of constructive dismissal. This factual determination was based on the pleadings and a medical certificate presented by the private respondent. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that when faced with conflicting versions of facts, the Labor Arbiter has the discretion to determine which party to credit. Furthermore, the filing of a complaint for reinstatement with backwages is inconsistent with the defense of abandonment of work, and abandonment requires both the intention to abandon and overt acts demonstrating such intent. The Court also noted that the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, are generally binding and supported by substantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
Fishermen employed by a fishing corporation are not considered "field personnel" under Article 82 of the Labor Code because their work, though performed away from the principal place of business, is under the effective control and supervision of the employer through the vessel's patron or master. Consequently, they are entitled to service incentive leave pay.