Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

FLOURISH MARITIME SHIPPING and LOLITA UY, G.R. No. 177948

Petitioners,
Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
DONATO A. ALMANZOR, REYES, JJ.
Respondent.

Promulgated:

March 14, 2008

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court assailing the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated February 27, 2007

and its Resolution[2] dated May 18, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 95056. The assailed

Decision affirmed with modification the Decision[3] of the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC) dated April 28, 2006 in NLRC NCR CA NO. 046596-05 which, in

turn, affirmed the Decision[4] of Labor Arbiter Lutricia F. Quitevis-Alconcel, dated

October 7, 2005 in OFW NLRC CASE NO. (M) 05-01-0243-00.

The facts of the case are as follows:

 Respondent Donato A. Almanzor entered into a two-year employment

contract with Flourish Maritime Shipping as fisherman, with a monthly salary of

NT15,840.00 with free meals every day. It was, likewise, agreed that respondent

would be provided with suitable accommodations.[5]

On October 1, 2004, respondent was deployed to Taipei, Taiwan as part

of the crew of a fishing vessel known as FV Tsang Cheng 66. Respondent was

surprised to learn that there were only five (5) crew members on board and he

had to buy his own food, contrary to the agreed stipulation of free food and

accommodation.[6]

While on board, the master of the vessel gave respondent orders which

he could not understand; thus, he failed to obey him. Consequently, enraged at

not being obeyed, the master struck him, hitting the right dorsal part of his body.

He then requested medical assistance, but the master refused.[7] Hence, he

sought the help of petitioner Lolita Uy (the manning agency owner), who then

talked to the master of the vessel.

While the vessel was docked at the Taipei port, respondent was informed

that he would be repatriated. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he reported to

petitioners and sought medical assistance after which he was declared “fit to

work.” Petitioners promised that he would be redeployed, but it turned out that it

was no longer possible because of his age, for then he was already 49 years old.
 Thus, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment for the

unexpired portion of his employment contract, earned wages, moral and

exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.

Petitioners countered that respondent voluntarily resigned[8] from his

employment and returned to the Philippines on the same day. They, likewise,

sought the dismissal of the complaint for failure of respondent to comply with the

grievance machinery and arbitration clause embodied in the contract of

employment. Lastly, they insisted that respondent failed to discharge the burden

to prove that he was illegally dismissed.[9]

On October 7, 2005, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of

respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing, judgment is

hereby rendered declaring respondents guilty of illegal
dismissal.

Respondents Flourish Maritime Shipping and Wang

Yung Chin are hereby ordered to jointly and solidarily pay
complainant Donato A. Almanzor the amount of NT15,840.00
times six (6) months or a total of NT Ninety-Five Thousand
Forty (NT95,040.00). Respondents shall pay the total amount
in its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment plus legal
interest.

All other claims herein sought and prayed for are

hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases.

SO ORDERED.[10]

On appeal to the NLRC, the Commission affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s

findings.
 Unsatisfied, petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals on

petition for certiorari.[11] The appellate court agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s

conclusion (as affirmed by the NLRC) that respondent was illegally dismissed from

employment. It, however, modified the NLRC decision by increasing the monetary

award due respondent in accordance with its interpretation of Section 10 of

Republic Act (R.A.) 8042.[12]

Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC Board of Commissioners awarded

such amount equivalent to respondent’s salary for six (6) months (3 months for

every year of the unexpired term) considering that respondent’s employment

contract covered a two-year period and he was dismissed from employment after

only 26 days of actual work. The CA, however, disagreed with such interpretation.

According to the CA, since respondent actually worked for 26 days and was

thereafter dismissed from employment, the unexpired portion of the contract is

one (1) year, eleven (11) months and four (4) days. For the unexpired one

(second) whole year, the court awarded three months’ salary. As to the 11

months and 4 days of the first year, the appellate court refused to apply the

three-month rule. Instead, in addition to three months (for the unexpired second

year), it awarded full compensation corresponding to the whole unexpired term of

11 months and 4 days. Thus, the CA deemed it proper to award a total amount

equivalent to the respondent’s salary for 14 months and 4 days.[13]

Petitioners now raise the following issues for resolution:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE THREE LETTERS ARE

RESIGNATION LETTERS OR QUITCLAIMS.
 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE MODIFICATION OF THE
NLRC DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONTRARY TO
LAW.[14]

Simply stated, petitioners want this Court to resolve the issue of whether

respondent was illegally dismissed from employment and if so, to determine the

correct award of compensation due respondent.

The Labor Arbiter concluded that petitioners, who had the burden of

proof, failed to adduce any convincing evidence to establish and substantiate its

claim that respondent voluntarily resigned from employment.[15] Likewise, the

NLRC held that petitioners failed to show that respondent was not physically fit to

perform work due to his old age. Moreover, the labor tribunal said that petitioners

failed to prove that the employment contract indeed provided a grievance

machinery.[16] Clearly, both labor tribunals correctly concluded, as affirmed by

the Court of Appeals, that respondent was not redeployed for work, in violation of

their employment contract. Perforce, the termination of respondent’s services is

without just or valid cause.

We reiterate the dictum that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this

doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Factual questions are for the

labor tribunals to resolve. In this case, the factual issues were resolved by the

Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Their findings were affirmed by the Court of

Appeals. Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the

sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its

determination.[17]
 On the amount of the award due respondent, Section 10 of R.A. 8042

provides:

SECTION 10. Money Claims. – x x x

xxxx

In case of termination of overseas employment

without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or
contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement
of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per
annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less.

x x x x.

The correct interpretation of this provision was settled in Marsaman

Manning Agency Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[18] where this Court

held that “the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas

contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his

employment contract, or three (3) months’ salary for every year of the unexpired

term, whichever is less,” comes into play only when the employment contract

concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more.[19]

The employment contract involved in the instant case covers a two-year

period but the overseas contract worker actually worked for only 26 days prior to

his illegal dismissal. Thus, the three months’ salary rule applies. There is a

similar factual milieu between the case at bench and Olarte v. Nayona.[20] The

only difference lies in the length of the subject employment contract: Olarte

involved a one-year contract; while the employment in this case covers a two-

year period. However, they both fall under the three months’ salary rule since the
term of the contract is “at least one year or more.” In Olarte, as well as in JSS

Indochina Corporation v. Ferrer,[21] we ordered the employer of an illegally

dismissed overseas contract worker to pay an amount equivalent to three (3)

months’ salary.

We are not in accord with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that

respondent should be paid his salaries for 14 months and 4 days. Records show

that his actual employment lasted only for 26 days. Applying the above provision,

and considering that the employment contract covers a two-year period, we agree

with the Labor Arbiter’s disposition, as affirmed by the NLRC, that respondent is

entitled to six (6) months’ salary. This is obviously what the law provides.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated February 27, 2007, and its Resolution

dated May 18, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 95056, are AFFIRMED with the

MODIFICATION that the monetary award to be paid the respondent shall be the

amount set forth in the decision of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate

Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; rollo, pp. 57-
67.
[2] Rollo, p. 72.
[3] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier, with
Commissioners Tito F. Genilo and Gregorio O. Bilog, III, concurring; rollo, pp. 42-
48.
[4] Rollo, pp. 32-35.
[5] Id. at 43.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 32-33.
[8] The petitioners presented three “resignation” letters denominated as
Breach of Contract Agreement Letter and Breach of Contract and Transfer to New
Employer Agreement Letter; rollo, pp. 16-18.
[9] Rollo, p. 44.
[10] Id. at 35.
[11] Id. at 51-56.
[12] Otherwise known as “The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995.”
[13] Rollo, p. 65.
[14] Id. at 10.
[15] Id. at 34.
[16] Id. at 46.
[17] Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. Nos. 159969 & 160116, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 123, 142; Alfaro v.
Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 310, 318 (2001).
[18] 371 Phil. 827 (1999).
[19] Id. at 840.
[20] 461 Phil. 429 (2003).
[21] G.R. No. 156381, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 120.