Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Galvez
G.R. No. 178184; January 29, 2014
Facts:
Petitioner Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc (GASLI) is a domestic corporation
engaged in transporting liquified petroleum gas (LPG) from Petrons refinery in
Bataan to Pasig and Cavite.
Respondents are crewmembers of one of GASLIs vessels, M/T Dorothy Uno.
On January 2000, Richard Abis (vessels oiler) reported to GASLI an alleged
illegal activity being committed by respondent who would misdeclare the
consume fuel in the Engineers Voyage Reports and the save fuel oil were sold to
other vessel out at sea (at nighttime). Profits would be divided amongst
themselves.
After investigation, from the period of June 30, 1999 to Feb 15, 2000 the fuel it
consumption was overrate by 6,954.3 liters amounting to 74,737.86.
Acting upon the anomaly, GASLI placed respondents under preventive
suspension and after conducting administrative hearings decided to terminate
them for breach of trust, commission of crime against employer.
Respondents filed with the NLRC separate complaint for illegal suspension and
dismissal, underpayment/nonpayment of salaries/wages, overtime pay, premium
pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive pay, tax refunds and indemnities
for damages and attorneys fees against petitioner.
On August 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered decision finding the dismissal of
21 complainants to be illegal.
Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion to Reduce Bond before the
NLRC citing economic depression, legality of termination, and compliance with
labor standards. NLRC denied petitioners motion to reduce bond and directed an
additional bond.
Despite petitioners failure the pay the bond, NLRC found the appeal meritorious
and ruled for petitioners. Stating that the dismissal was valid with the exception of
Sales.
NLRC struck down the monetary awards given by the Labor Arbiter as they were
based on computations made by respondents.
On appeal to the CA, the court ruled in favor of respondent stating that the
NLRCs decision had jurisdictional error since petitioner did not comply with the
additional bond.
LABOR LAW
Issue:
I. WON the CA erred in holding that respondents were illegally dismissed
II. WON the CA erred when it concluded petitioner were not able to perfect the appeal of
the Labor Arbitrers decision
Held/Ratio:
I. No, the CA did not commit any error in finding that respondents were illegally
II. Yes, the CA erred in holding that there was no compliance on the part of petitioner
regarding the appeal bonds. According to Art. 223 of the Labor Code, the posting of a
bond, either in cash or surety, must be in the amount equivalent to them entry award.
Nonetheless, the court held that rules should not be applied in a very rigid and strict
sensethe same in labor cases were substantial merits serve the interest of justice. In
this case, the petitioner appeals from the awarding of 7,104,483.84 to respondents and
only complied with the posting of 500,000 PHP. We find this to be in substantial
compliance with the Labor Code.