G.R. No.

180636

LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN,* Petitioner, 
vs.
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks a modification of the Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA). Also assailed is the Resolution denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

FACTS:

o A case for illegal dismissal with a claim for the payment of salaries corresponding to the
unexpired term of the contract, damages and attorney’s fees filed by private respondent
Lorenzo T. Tangga-an (TANGGA-AN) against the petitioners Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. (PTC)

o January 31, 2002, Tangga-an entered into an overseas employment contract with PTC for a
period of six (6) months as chief engineer

o February 11, 2002, Tangga-an was deployed. While performing his assigned task, he
noticed that while they were loading liquid cargo at Cedros, Mexico, the vessel suddenly
listed too much at the bow. At that particular time both the master and the chief mate went on
shore leave together, which under maritime standard was prohibited. To avoid any conflict,
he chose to ignore the unbecoming conduct of the senior officers of the vessel.

o March 13, 2002, the vessel berthed at a port in Japan to discharge its cargo. Thereafter, it
sailed to the U.S.A. While the vessel was still at sea, the master required Tangga-an and the
rest of the Filipino Engineer Officers to report to his office where they were informed that they
would be repatriated on account of the delay in the cargo discharging in Japan, which was
principally a duty belonging to the deck officers.

o April 2, 2002 Tangga-an and the other Engineering Officers were ordered to disembark from
the vessel and thereafter repatriated.

o Tangga-an filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of salaries for the
unexpired portion of his contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral damages, attorney’s fees
and interest.

o January 27, 2004, Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding petitioner to have been illegally
dismissed. Labor Arbiter noted that Tangga-an categorically denied any negligence on his
part relative to the delay in the discharge of the cargo while the vessel was berthed in Japan.
In view thereof, the Labor Arbiter opined that an investigation should have been conducted in
order to ferret out the truth instead of dismissing petitioner outright. Consequently,
petitioner’s dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause and for failure to comply with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.

o Labor Arbiter - Opined that Tangga-an is entitled not to four months which is equivalent to
the unexpired portion of his contract, but only to three months, inclusive of vacation
leave pay and tonnage bonus pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or
The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 2005. (It was raised to NLRC by
PTC)
 o NLRC - The NLRC affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal. Employee is entitled to all the
salaries, allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalents from the time his
compensation is withheld from him until he is actually reinstated, in effect citing Article 279 of
the Labor Code plus attorney’s fees.

o CA - The CA adhered to the finding of illegal dismissal. But on the subject of monetary
awards, the CA considered only petitioner’s monthly basic salary and disregarded his
monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus. It likewise held that petitioner’s
"unexpired portion of contract" for which he is entitled to back salaries should only be three
months pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042. In addition, petitioner should be paid back his
placement fee with interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum. No attorneys fee.

ISSUE:

Whether Tangga-an was illegally dismissed? Whether he is entitled to his back salaries for the
unexpired portion of his contract, inclusive of vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus plus attorney's
fees?

RULING:

Yes. He was illegally dismissed and he is entitled of all the enumerated monetary equivalents.

There remains no issue regarding illegal dismissal. In spite of the consistent finding below that
petitioner was illegally dismissed, respondents did not take issue, which thus renders all
pronouncements on the matter final.

In resolving petitioner’s monetary claims, the CA utterly misinterpreted the Court’s ruling in Skippers
Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd., using it to support a view which the latter case
precisely ventured to strike down.

o In Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd case, the employee was
hired as the vessel’s Master on a six-months employment contract, but was able to work
for only two months, as he was later on illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the
CA all took the view that the complaining employee was entitled to his salary for the
unexpired portion of his contract, but limited to only three months pursuant to Section 10 24 of
RA 8042. The Court did not agree and hence modified the judgment in said case. It held
that, following the wording of Section 10 and its ruling in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc.
v. National Labor Relations Commission, when the illegally dismissed employee’s
employment contract has a term of less than one year, he/she shall be entitled to recovery of
salaries representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment contract. Indeed, there
was nothing even vaguely confusing in the Court’s citation therein of Marsaman.

o Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, involving Section 10 of Republic Act No.
8042, we held:

We cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3)
months’ salary only. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals 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. This is evident from the
wording "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the wording "salaries x x x for
 three months." To follow petitioners’ thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3)
months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and
overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some.

It is not disputed that private respondent’s employment contract in Tangga-an’s case was for six (6)
months. Hence, we see no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that private respondent
should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. (Emphases
supplied)

At this juncture, the courts, especially the CA, should be reminded to read and apply this
Court’s labor pronouncements with utmost care and caution, taking to mind that in the very
heart of the judicial system, labor cases occupy a special place. More than the State
guarantees of protection of labor and security of tenure, labor disputes involve the
fundamental survival of the employees and their families, who depend upon the former for all
the basic necessities in life.