Cervantes v. Pal Maritime Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rolando Cervantes was hired as Master on board the vessel M/V Themistocles by respondent PAL Maritime Corporation. On July 31, 1995, a telex message enumerated complaints from Colonial Shipping, the vessel owner, regarding petitioner's poor communication, disorganized vessel certifications and procedures, lack of awareness of key documents like the ship board oil pollution emergency plan, lack of working knowledge of grain loading calculation procedures, and the need to improve operational and maintenance standards. On August 2, 1995, petitioner sent a telex message to Western Shipping stating, "ANYHOW TO AVOID REPETITION ON MORE HARSH REPORTS TO COME. BETTER ARRANGE MY RELIEVER AND C/O BUSTILLO RELIEVER ALSO. UPON ARR NEXT USA LOADING PORT FOR THEIR SATISFACTION." On September 20, 1995, Western Shipping informed petitioner that the owners decided to relieve him upon passing the Panama Canal or the next convenient port, stating, "WE TRUST THIS PRE-MATURED ENDING OF CONTRACT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND FOR THE BENEFITS OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED." Petitioner replied, "HV NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT YR DECISION. TKS ANYHOW FOR RELIEVING ME IN NEXT CONVENIENT PORT WILL EASE THE BURDEN THAT I HV FELT ONBOARD. REST ASSURE VSL WILL BE TURNED OVER PROPERLY TO INCOMING MASTER." Petitioner was repatriated on October 13, 1995. On October 25, 1996, petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and ordered respondents to pay his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract and attorney's fees. The NLRC reversed this decision, adopting the finding of Labor Arbiter Concepcion that petitioner was not dismissed but opted to be relieved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that petitioner voluntarily resigned. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner raised issues regarding his entitlement to claims arising from illegal termination and the perfection of an appeal without a joint declaration under oath.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal of the respondents was perfected despite the late submission of the Joint Declaration Under Oath. Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed or voluntarily resigned from his employment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 14 August 2006 and 26 October 2006, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 76756 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of the appeal: The Court held that the appeal was substantially complied with. While the NLRC Rules of Procedure require a Joint Declaration Under Oath attesting to the genuineness of the surety bond, this rule may be liberally construed. In this case, respondents posted a surety bond equivalent to the monetary award and filed the notice of appeal and appeal memorandum within the reglementary period. Although the Joint Declaration was submitted late, respondents immediately complied when directed by the NLRC, demonstrating substantial compliance and willingness to abide by the directives. The Court emphasized that technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed to serve the demand of substantial justice, citing the Labor Code's mandate for labor officials to ascertain facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities. The late submission of the Joint Declaration, when viewed alongside the timely posting of the bond and filing of appeal documents, did not render the appeal unperfected. On whether petitioner was illegally dismissed or voluntarily resigned: The Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that petitioner voluntarily resigned. The Court reasoned that resignation is a voluntary act where an employee believes personal reasons cannot be sacrificed for the exigency of service. Petitioner's telex message, "ANYHOW TO AVOID REPETITION ON MORE HARSH REPORTS TO COME. BETTER ARRANGE MY RELIEVER... FOR THEIR SATISFACTION," was an unmistakable demand to be relieved. Respondents accepted this "resignation," and petitioner's reply, "HV NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT YR DECISION... WILL EASE THE BURDEN THAT I HV FELT ONBOARD," indicated his acceptance of the decision to be relieved. The Court found no merit in petitioner's claim of being forced to resign due to extreme pressure, noting that only two days elapsed between receiving the complaints and sending his request for relief. The Court also found no substantiation for petitioner's claim of racial discrimination, as there was no showing that the Greek technician spearheaded or participated in the complaints against petitioner. The filing of the illegal dismissal case a year after repatriation, coupled with the clear tenor of his resignation letter, suggested that the illegal dismissal case was a mere afterthought.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is not necessarily inconsistent with resignation, especially when the resignation was an offshoot of complaints against the employee's performance and the employee's subsequent actions clearly indicate a voluntary act of seeking relief from his post.