Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    85 Barairo v. OP

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Ejeil Pascual
    1) Miguel claimed he was placed on "forced vacation" from his job aboard a ship without pay. 2) He appealed the Secretary of Labor's decision to the Office of the President. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that appealing to the Office of the President was not the proper remedy, and that the proper remedy was to file a Petition for Certiorari against the Secretary of Labor's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    85 Barairo v. OP

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Ejeil Pascual
    116 views1 page
    1) Miguel claimed he was placed on "forced vacation" from his job aboard a ship without pay. 2) He appealed the Secretary of Labor's decision to the Office of the President. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that appealing to the Office of the President was not the proper remedy, and that the proper remedy was to file a Petition for Certiorari against the Secretary of Labor's decision.

    Original Description:

    afdasf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Miguel claimed he was placed on "forced vacation" from his job aboard a ship without pay. 2) He appealed the Secretary of Labor's decision to the Office of the President. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that appealing to the Office of the President was not the proper remedy, and that the proper remedy was to file a Petition for Certiorari against the Secretary of Labor's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views1 page

    85 Barairo v. OP

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Ejeil Pascual
    1) Miguel claimed he was placed on "forced vacation" from his job aboard a ship without pay. 2) He appealed the Secretary of Labor's decision to the Office of the President. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that appealing to the Office of the President was not the proper remedy, and that the proper remedy was to file a Petition for Certiorari against the Secretary of Labor's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Appeal in Labor cases Miguel claims that he was placed on “forced vacation” from his employment aboard

    the Maritina.
    85 Miguel Dela Peña Barairo V. Office of the President and MST Marine Services
    (Phils.), Inc. Issue:
    June 15, 2011 | Carpio-Morales, J. | W/N the appeal to the OP was the proper remedy.

    Held:
    Doctrine: The proper remedy to question the decisions or orders of the Secretary
    of Labor is via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not via an appeal to the NO. The DOLE Secretary is the alter ego of the President. The acts of the
    Office of the President (OP). For appeals to the OP in labor cases have indeed Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular
    been eliminated, except those involving national interest over which the President course of business are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
    may assume jurisdiction. Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.

    Following settled jurisprudence, the proper remedy to question the decisions or


    Facts: orders of the Secretary of Labor is via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not via
    an appeal to the OP. For appeals to the OP in labor cases have indeed been
    Miguel Barairo was hired on June 29, 2004 by MST Marine Services (Phils.) Inc., eliminated, except those involving national interest over which the President may
    (MST) for its principal, TSM International, Ltd., as Chief Mate of the vessel assume jurisdiction. The rationale behind this development is mirrored in the OP’s
    Maritina, for a contract period of six months. He boarded the vessel and Resolution of June 26, 2009 the pertinent portion of which reads:
    discharged his duties on July 23, 2004, but was relieved on August 28, 2004
    ostensibly for transfer to another vessel, Solar. Petitioner thus disembarked in “[T] he assailed DOLE’s Orders were both issued by Undersecretary Danilo P. Cruz
    Manila on August 29, 2004. under the authority of the DOLE Secretary who is the alter ego of the President.
    Under the “Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency,” a corollary rule to the control
    Miguel was later to claim that he was not paid the promised “stand-by fee” in powers of the President, all executive and administrative organizations are
    lieu of salary that he was to receive while awaiting transfer to another vessel as in adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive
    fact the transfer never materialized. departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases
    where the Chief Executive is required by Constitution or law to act in person or the
    On October 20, 2004, Miguel signed a new Contract of Employment for a six- exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious
    month deployment as Chief Mate in a newly-built Japanese vessel, M/T Haruna. He executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by
    was paid a one-month “stand-by fee” in connection with the Maritina contract. and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such
    departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business are,
    unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of
    Miguel boarded the M/T Haruna on October 31, 2004 but he disembarked a week
    the Chief Executive.”
    later as MST claimed that his boarding of M/T Haruna was a “sea trial” which,
    MST maintains, was priorly made known to him on a “stand-by” fee.
    Dispositive
    MST soon informed petitioner that he would be redeployed to the M/T Haruna on
    November 30, 2004, but petitioner refused, prompting MST to file a complaint for WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.
    breach of contract against him before the Philippine Overseas Employment
    Administration (POEA).

    You might also like