LM 28

Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc.

vs
NLRC, Rogelio Bisula, Ruben Arroza, et al.
July 20, 1982
Petition for CERTIORARI to review the decision of the NLRC
Barredo, J.:

Facts:
- Private respondents have a manning contract for a period of 1 year in petitioner
(Principal: Kyoei Tanker Co. Ltd)
- Terms and conditions of contract were based on the standard contract of National
Seaman Board and was approved by NSB.
- Vessels not paying rates imposed by the International Transport Workers Federation
(ITF) would be detained or interdicted in foreign ports controlled by ITF.
o Hence, they executed a side contract that if vessel M/T Janu be required to pay
ITF rates, respondent would return to petitioner the amounts so paid to them.
- March 23, 1979
o Master of the vessel sent a cable to petitioner, while going to Australia (ITF
controlled port) stating that they were not contented with the salary and
benefits due to volume of work with hazardous cargo, and due to difference
with other shipping agencies in Manila,
o Hence, they demanded 50% increase as the best and only solution to solve
the ITF problem
- March 24
o Petitioners were apprehensive due to the fact that Australia is an ITF port
should respondents denounce the existing manning contract to ITF and
petitioner refuse or be unable to pay the ITF rates, which is more than 100% of
what is stipulated in the manning contract.
o Hence, petitioner proposed increase of 25% plus special compensation for this
particular voyages
- March 25
o The crew hesitates to give the demand of 50% but willing to accept
conditionally on the following conditions:
The increase of 25% must be effective March 1979
Increase must be collectible on board until disembarkation
Allocation remains as is
Reasonable repallows for all officers
Bonus for 6 months services rendered collectible on board
New upgraded salary scale
Special Compensation given by company prior departure from Manila
remains as is
o Petitioner replied that they agree and required documents will be delivered on
board.
- March 26
o Petitioner wrote a letter to NSB denouncing the conduct of private respondents
o They have demanded 25% increase in basic pay, overtime pay, representation
allowance
Amounting to US$3,096.5 per month which the company is not in a
position to shoulder.
Negotiating with Principal, Kyoei Tanker Company, for amendment of
agency agreement.
- April 4
o KTC terminated the manning contract in view of the conduct and breach of
contract,
Only 3 months on board, their demands were very unreasonable.
Their action was definitely abusive and plain blackmail.
But since the vessel is only under our management, we cannot afford
to grant your request.
Crew must respect employment contracts which were approved by
government and NSB must make sure that all seamen follow their
contracts.
1. Cannot grant increase
2. Terminate the manning agreement effect upon crews change when vessel
arrives at Japan, or at any possible port at the end of April 1979.
- April 6
o Vir-Jen Shipping wrote to NSB asking permission to cancel the manning
contract.
Request for NSBs authority to cancel our Contracts of Employment
and to disembark the whole crew upon vessels arrival in Japan on or
about April 17.
- April 10
o The NSB, through its Executive Director (Cresencio C. Dayao) wrote
authorizing cancelation of manning contract.
- Seamen were disembarked in Japan and repatriated
- They filed a complaint with NSB for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages.
- NSB found that the termination before expiration was justified when they demanded
more than what was in the contract.
o Alteration and modification of a valid and existing contract
- Seamen appealed the decision to the NLRC
o Reversed the decision of NSB
o Required petitioner to pay wages, other monetary benefits corresponding to
the unexpired portion of the manning contract
o Termination was without valid cause
- Hence, present petition
1. NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, despite the fact that prior
authorization to terminate or cancel said employment contracts and to disembark
said respondents was first secured and granted by NSB
a. Gov. agency primarily charged with the supervision and discipline of
seamen and enforcement of employment contracts.
2. NLRC concluded that no record showing seamen made threat that they would
complain or report to ITF despite the only solution to solve ITF problems
3. Holding that seamen acted within their reight when they imposed upon their
employer demands for salary, disregarding existing NSB-approved contract of
employment.
a. NSB is the trier of facts and in the best position to assess.
4. In holding that petitioner to pay and reinstate the employees when they have lost
the trust and confidence
5. That NSB decision was final and executor for failure of respondents to submit
appeal and memorandum of appeal within 10 days.
6. That the Appeal and Memorandum of Appeals signature was forged, and the new
counsel was not even authorized by some of the private respondents.

Issues:
1. W/O/N the respondents filed within the 10 day reglementary period for appeal

July 9, 1980 (Wednesday)
o NSB decision was received by respondents
- July 23, 1980 (Wednesday)
o Filed their memorandum of appeal (14 days)
- Labor Code Article 223
o Decisions of Labor Arbiters are final and executor unless appealed within 10
days of receipt
o Appeals from the NSB decision must be made within 10 days
Respondent:
- Rule of the Labor Code refers to working days
- That the court upheld such construction and manner of computation in Fabula vs.
NLRC
Petitioner:
- Minister of Labor cannot go beyond the clear and unmistakable language of the law
and expad it at his discretion
- Article 223 of Labor Code states 10 days, not 10 working days.

Held: 10 days contemplates calendar days and not working days
Court:
- It is in the interest of labor that labor cases be disposed immediately as longer period
means more advantage for management seeing as they have money to employ well-
paid talented lawyers that can give them ingenious defenses.
- The workers then just give up or compromise for less than what is due to them.
- That notwithstanding, and the fact that the respondents may have been misled by the
implementing rules, we have to opted just the same to pass on the merits of the
substantial issues.

Seamens Contract
- Special laws and contracts govern it.
- Labor Code article 12 provides:
o It is the policy of State to insure and regulate movement of workers in
conformity with the national interest
o Insure careful selection of Filipino workers for OFW to protect the good name
of the Philippines abroad.
- NSB is the agency created to implement state policies and secure best terms and
conditions of employment for seamen and insure compliance thereof.
o It is unlawful to alter any previously approved employment contract without
NSB approval
o Authorizes employer of vessel to terminate such contract for just causes
Bad conduct
Unwanted presence of prejudicial to the safety of the ship
Material breach of contract
- Stringent rules governing Filipino seamen are dictated by national interest
o 120k registered seamen, but only 50k are employed (70k still hoping)
o The 50k must act accordingly with utmost propriety and abide strictly with
terms and conditions.
o NSB should see that owners of foreign owned vessels will be encouraged to
renew employment contract and be induced to hire other Filipino seamen as
against other competing foreign sailors.
- Labor Code Art. 20 (Creation of NSB)
o Created to:
1. Provide free placement services for seamen
2. Regulate and supervise the activities of agents or representatives of
shipping companies in the hiring of seamen OFW
a. Secure best contract employment
b. Secure compliance
3. Maintain a complete registry of all Filipino seamen
o Original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or cases including
o Money claims
o EE-ER relations
o Decision of NSB shall be appealable on the grounds provided in Article
223.
o Decisions of NLRC shall be final and unappealable except:
o Abuse of discretion
o Fraud or coercion
o Questions of law
o Serious errors in the findings of facts which would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to appellant.

Issues:
1. Event of conflict in conclusion by NLRC and NSB, which is fundamentally an issue
of fact, which one should prevail?
2. Was it legally proper for the NLRC to disregard the permission granted by NSB?
3. Did respondent breach contract with petitioner?
4. Was the demand made through threat of grave injury to respondent?
Notes:
1. Claimants started from 28 to 15 to 10 then 9 due to the withdrawal of the claimants
themselves.
2. Including: What is listed is not the only ones allowed, including means there are
other
3. Right to grievance- Basic right of all working men to seek greater benefits not only
for themselves for their families as well
4. Constitution itself guarantees the promotion of social welfate and protection to labor.
5. Employer cannot be legally compelled to continue with the employment of a person
who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employers, and
whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest.
6. The law in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither the oppression nor
self-destruction of the employer.