Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Cortina
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Felipe D. Cortina was employed by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. as a Third Officer on the vessel Blue Tank Lancer, with a one-year contract starting September 9, 1993, and a monthly salary of US $800.00. After only four months, on January 20, 1994, Cortina was forced to disembark in Singapore due to the alleged sale of the vessel, with a promised transfer to another vessel that never materialized. Consequently, Cortina filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries and separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cortina on April 7, 1997, declaring his termination illegal and ordering the employer to pay US $2,640.00 for salaries, fixed overtime, and fixed leave pay. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the appeal was dismissed on February 27, 1998, for failure to attach the original surety bond and a joint declaration of its genuineness. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, the employer filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition on May 12, 2000, affirming the NLRC's decision and finding the dismissal illegal. A motion for reconsideration was again denied on November 14, 2000. 3. The Petition: Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the NLRC's dismissal of the appeal, in ruling that the sale of the vessel was not a valid cause for termination, and in upholding the monetary award. The petitioner contends that the subsequent submission of the original appeal bond and joint declaration should have cured the defect and that the sale of the vessel, as per their contract and the POEA Standard Employment Contract, was a valid reason for termination, entitling the respondent to only one month's basic pay as termination pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the NLRC's finding that the subsequent submission of the original copy of the appeal bond and the joint declaration of its genuineness did not cure the defect of the appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the sale and/or transfer of the vessel is not a valid cause to terminate respondent's employment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC's monetary award to respondent equivalent to his salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract instead of his one (1) month basic wage.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated May 14, 2000 and Resolution dated November 14, 2000 of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (appeal bond and joint declaration): The Court affirmed the ruling that the posting of an appeal bond and the submission of a joint declaration attesting to its genuineness are mandatory and jurisdictional requirements for perfecting an appeal in labor cases involving monetary awards. Citing Sections 4(a) and 6 of Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the Court reiterated that failure to comply with these rules renders the decision sought to be reviewed final and unappealable, as held in Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. vs. NLRC. The Court emphasized that the negligence of counsel in fulfilling these procedural requirements cannot be excused. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter's Decision became final and unappealable due to petitioner's non-compliance. On the second issue (validity of termination due to vessel sale): Even assuming the rules on appeal bond were relaxed, the petition would still be denied. The Court found that respondent was illegally dismissed. Petitioner's justification for dismissal, based on Section 23 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and Section 3, Article VI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, was not substantiated. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that petitioner failed to present any evidence proving the sale of the vessel or that it was laid-up or its voyage discontinued. The burden is on the employer to prove that termination was for a valid and authorized cause, which petitioner failed to do, thus constituting discharge without cause. On the third issue (monetary award): While the petition primarily focused on the procedural aspect of the appeal and the validity of the dismissal, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision which, in turn, upheld the Labor Arbiter's award. The Labor Arbiter awarded US $2,640.00 for salaries, fixed overtime pay, and fixed leave pay. The Court of Appeals' decision did not specifically modify this award to be equivalent to one month's basic wage as argued by the petitioner, but rather affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in its entirety, implying the correctness of the monetary award granted.
Main Doctrine
The posting of an appeal bond and the submission of a joint declaration attesting to its genuineness are mandatory and jurisdictional requirements for perfecting an appeal in labor cases involving monetary awards. Failure to comply renders the decision final and unappealable. Furthermore, the sale or transfer of a vessel is not a valid cause for termination of employment unless proven by substantial evidence and in accordance with the terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement.