SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224910. September 14, 2016.]
GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. ROLDAN P. BURANDAY, respondent.
[G.R. No. 225259. September 14, 2016.]
ROLDAN P. BURANDAY, petitioner, vs. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224910 (GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. ROLDAN P. BURANDAY).
G.R. No. 225259 (ROLDAN P. BURANDAY v. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC., ET AL.).
THE CASE
This refers to the consolidated Rule 45 appeals from the August 19, 2015 decision and May 31, 2016 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05722-MIN penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. LLoren and Pablito A. Perez.
The case arose from the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Roldan Buranday against the respondents Global Gateway Crewing Services, Inc., its Gen. Manager Alejandro Palanca, Operations Manager Angela Gargoles, its principal Michaelmar Shipping Services and rep./manager Kostas Panagiotidis. Buranday was employed as Master Mariner, under a seven-month contract, for the M/V Cape Leonidas owned by Empire Navigation, Inc., (ENI) represented by Michaelmar in the Philippines.
Buranday joined the vessel on September 24, 2011 and was supposed to serve until April 24, 2012, yet he was repatriated on February 12, 2012. He claimed that his repatriation was illegal because he was merely told to disembark upon arrival of the vessel in Singapore. He asked Kostas for the reason why, but he did not get an answer. When the vessel arrived in Singapore on February 9, 2012, he was forced to disembark as his replacement, a Capt. Kierulf, was already there waiting. Left with no choice, he returned to the Philippines and filed the complaint.
In defense, the respondents argued that Buranday was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. Allegedly, he encouraged the crew to drink alcohol, in violation of ENI's no-alcohol policy. Global was instructed to inform Buranday of his relief upon orders of the principal and to send his replacement to Singapore.
At the hearing on April 10, 2012, the respondents paid Buranday's "final wages and 1 day transit" in the amount of $2,970.70 and $58.00 respectively, leaving just the issue of his alleged illegal dismissal to be resolved. In an August 8, 2012 decision, Labor Arbiter Merceditas P. Larida found Buranday to have been illegally dismissed and awarded him $5,437.50, representing his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract (February 10, 2012 to April 24, 2012), plus attorney's fees.
Unsatisfied, Buranday appealed, arguing that LA Larida erred in not awarding him his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract based on his compensation package of US$8,000 under his employment contract and, damages. In its decision of March 27, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Buranday moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion, prompting him to go to the CA for relief through a petition for certiorari, charging the NLRC of grave abuse of discretion in affirming LA Larida's ruling.
The CA identified two issues for resolution: (1) whether Buranday is entitled to the alleged entire compensation package agreed upon, which includes the basic monthly salary, overtime pay, vacation leave with pay, leave sub and owners bonuses; and (2) whether he is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. aICcHA
In its decision sought to be nullified, the CA held that Buranday is only entitled to his monthly basic salary of $2,175.00 for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. It explained that under the POEA-SEC, salary is defined as the basic wage of the seafarer exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; the overtime pay of $1,631.00, vacation leave pay of $653.00 and leave sub of $117 because overtime work should be established and the leave benefits can be granted only if the seafarer is in actual service.
On the second issue, the CA was convinced that Buranday is entitled to moral damages as his abrupt repatriation was done in bad faith. It noted that Kostas could not tell him the reason why he was being relieved, except to say that it was upon orders of the principal (the charterer). He tried to communicate with the vessel superintendents why he was discharged, to no avail. Worse, upon his return to Manila, he was given the runaround seeking an explanation until he was asked to sign a piece of paper before he could get his leave pay. The paper turned out to be a quitclaim which he refused to sign, and when he asked Kostas for copy of the charterer's communication ordering his relief, he was told that there was no such communication.
The CA thus believed that in relation to Buranday's dismissal, the officials or representatives of the respondents acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. Accordingly, it awarded Buranday P50,000.00 in moral damages. The CA however found no basis for the award of exemplary damages to Buranday there being no showing, it pointed out, that his dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner, even as it found that he was not afforded due process (without notice or hearing) before he was repatriated. Guided by jurisprudence, it awarded Buranday P30,000.00 in nominal damages.
THE PETITIONS
Both the respondents and Buranday moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the motions, prompting them to appeal to this Court; the respondents, on grounds that the appellate court committed a grave error in granting Buranday moral and exemplary damages, notwithstanding the lack of legal basis for the awards. They submit that contrary to jurisprudence, Buranday failed to prove the existence of bad faith in his dismissal by clear and convincing evidence. They add that although a dismissal may be contrary to law, by itself, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages.
The respondents likewise dispute the award of nominal damages to Buranday as it cannot be justified under the circumstances, they contend. They stress that he had to go immediately because his continued presence on board the vessel may influence the crew under his command; hence, the necessity of his immediate departure.
Buranday, for his part, argues that the CA gravely erred in ruling that he is not entitled to the whole compensation package. While he admits that under existing jurisprudence, the unexpired portion of a seaman's contract comprises only his basic pay, sound reason and good conscience dictate that he should be granted his compensation package under the contract. EHaASD
OUR RULING
The CA committed no reversible error in awarding moral and nominal damages to Buranday. Not only was his repatriation "swift," as the CA put it, it was forced as Buranday was suddenly told to disembark in a foreign shore with no reason given, and no option available but to leave, because his replacement was already there to take over command of the vessel. And, to complete the humiliation, he was required to sign a quitclaim (which he refused) when he arrived in Manila, in exchange for his leave pay. This is a clear demonstration of bad faith, considering that an agent of the respondents could not even give a reason for his dismissal, other than saying it was upon orders of the principal.
As the CA aptly cited, "Moral damages may be recovered where the dismissal of the employee was tainted by bad faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."1
Also, the award of nominal damages is in order as the respondents themselves admitted that Buranday had to leave immediately because his continued presence on board the vessel might influence the crew. Thus, there was no time to afford him due process. Respondents' excuse for making Buranday leave at once is pure speculation, considering their failure to prove their allegation that he violated the no-alcohol policy of the vessel.
Neither did the CA commit a reversible error in granting Buranday his basic monthly salary for the unexpired portion of his contract, since it is supported as Buranday himself admits, by a long line of jurisprudence. Moreover, with respect to his supposed compensation package under the employment contract, LA Larida categorically stated: "There is no express agreement shown to this effect."2
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we resolve to DENY the petitions for certiorari for lack of merit. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Park Hotel, et al. v. Mariano Soriano, et al., G.R. No. 171118, September 10, 2012.
2. Rollo, G.R. No. 225259, p. 62; Decision dated August 8, 2012, p. 5, last paragraph.