E2017 | Consti 1 | Prof. de Vera | digest by Jerry

Yap vs. Thenamaris Ship’s Management (GR 179532)

Date: May 30, 2011

Petitioner: Claudio S. Yap

Respondent: Thenamaris Ship’s Management, Intermare Maritime Agencies

Ponente: Nachura

Petition: Certiorari under Rule 45

Doctrine: Equal Protection; No law should single out one classification of OFWs and burden it with

a peculiar disadvantage

Facts Petitioner entered a one-year contract of employment with Intermare Maritime Agencies

as an electrician of M/T SEASCOUT (one of many vessels owned by Thenamaris Ships)

and started working on August 23, 2001

On November 08, 2001, the M/T SEASCOUT was sold to be scrapped. All crewmembers

were informed with an advisory stating, “Please ask yr officers and ratings if they wish

to be transferred to other vessels after vessel s delivery..x x x.. For crew not wish

transfer to declare their prospected time for reembarkation in order to schedule them

accly”

Only working for about 3 months, Yap received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus,

extra bonus, and scrapping bonus. He however refused to accept payment of a one-

month basic wage. Petitioner Yap insisted that he was entitled to 9 months’ worth of

wage, representing the unexpired portion of his contract with the company, because he

was illegally dismissed.

Why does Yap think he was illegally dismissed? Well because the management, upon

knowing Petitioner’s request for transfer, gave assurance to the latter that they will

transfer him to another vessel, even asked him to produce his electrician certificate for

this purpose, but nevertheless didn’t despite having numerous other vessels.

So there. Yap sued. All decisions – from the Labor Arbiter, to the NLRC, to the CA -

found that respondents acted in bad faith when they willfully failed to have Petitioner

transferred to another vessel, thus amounting Illegal Dismissal of Yap. Dispositive

portions were similar where moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees are

concerned EXCEPT for the lump-sum basic wage receivables (number of months)

petitioner was entitled to by reason of his illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter 9 months of basic wage

NLRC 3 months, but later reversed to 9 months after an MR

Court of Appeals 3 months

Why do the courts differ in computations?

E2017 | Consti 1 | Prof. de Vera | digest by Jerry

Well Sec 10 of RA 8042, says, to wit:

“In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or

contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of 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.”

Issue/Holding 1. W/N Sec 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional? YES

2. W/N Respondents can challenge the computation of the basic salary ONLY on

appeal (in this case, the SC)? NO

Ratio 1. The decision didn’t actually say much about this issue because while this case

was pending, the Supreme Court declared in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime

Services, Inc. that Sec 10 of RA 8042 really was unconstitutional.

They found that by virtue of that provision, fixed term OFW employees are

made to waive 9 months for every year of collectible backwages every time they

have a year of unexpired term of contract to reckon with AS COMPARED to

other illegally dismissed workers, i.e., local workers, other types of OFWs (not

fixed term), who are guaranteed of reinstatement and FULL backwages under

the Labor Code.

On Serrano, the Court held that the subject clause does not state or imply any

definitive governmental purpose; hence, the same violates not just therein

petitioner’s right to equal protection, but also his right to substantive due

process under the Constitution.

On the aspect of the Doctrine of Operative Fact, where when the declaration of

a statute or part of it as unconstitutional imposes an undue burden on those

who have relied on the invalid law, the Court ruled that this will not apply to the

case at bar. “After all, it was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to

an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents.”

2. No. “Matters not taken up below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

They must be seasonably in the proceedings before the lower tribunals.

Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties;

consequently, issues not raised before the lower tribunals cannot be raised for

the first time on appeal.”

Also, respondents themselves originally averred in their petition before the CA

that basic salary included tanker allowance, which is now, the exact same thing

they are trying to contest. Like anong shit yan diba.

Fallo xxx Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision xxx hereby MODIFIED xxx

petitioner is AWARDED his salaries xxx consisting of nine months computed at the rate

of US $1,430.00 per month. All other awards are herby AFFIRMED. xxx