Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Evic Human Resource Management Inc. (EVIC), et al. Vs. Rogelio O.

Panahon

Petitioner: Evic Human Resource Management Inc., Free Bulkers S.A. and/or Ma. Victoria C. Nicolas
Respondent: Rogelio O. Panahon
Date: July 31, 2017
G.R. No.: 206890
Ponente: Caguiao, J.

FACTS:
EVIC in behalf of its principal Free Bulkers hired Panahon as Chief Mate on board the vessel of M/V Free
Lady for a period of sic months with basic monthly salary of US$1,088.00.
Panahon was later repatriated to the Phils. without completing the contract of employment.
Panahon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for moral and exemplary damages, and attortneys
fees agains EVIC, Free Bulkers and Ma. Victoria Nicolas, the Owner and President of EVIC.
Panahon alleges that he has been a professional seafarer for 31 years and Chief Mate for 21 years.
He alleges that the Captain developed a Hostile Attitude towards him.
One time, the Captain asked Panahon to make a report about the damages on the ship. During their interaction,
the Captain smelled a whisky on Panahon. Panahon admitted that the drank a little whisky.
The captain made an entry in the logbook recommending his replacement.
The Petitioners on the other hand allege that the dismissal of Panahon was for a just cause because he did not
observe safety precautions, caught intoxicated in violation of company riles and the POEA contract and
arrogant.
LAs Ruling
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit
NLRCs Ruling
The NLRC affirmed the ruling of LA, but awarded nominal damages since the requisite notice and hearing was
not given to Panahon.
CAs Ruling
The CA reversed the NLRC decision and held that the unnotarized behavioural report which was the basis of
the LA and NLRC cannot be given credence because it was not corroborated. Only the captain witnessed such
acts.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the CA erred in ruling that there was no just cause in respondents dismissal.
2. W/N Respondent is entitled to attorneys fees.

HELD & RATIO:


1. No. The petitioners failed to prove just cause. The Crew Behaviour report is inadequate in meeting the
quantum of proof to discharge petitioners burden. The statements therein are uncorroborated and self-serving.
The acts mentioned were only witnessed by the captain and no one else. The petitioners also failed to prove
just cause in the termination of Panahon. Moreover, intoxication as ground for dismissal in the POEA-SEC
rules must be committed on duty. In this case, Panahon was intoxicated during off duty. The penalty of
dismissal was unwarranted.
2. Yes. The court affirmed the grant of attorneys fees of 10% of the total award. This is pursuant to Art. 111 of
the LC.

S-ar putea să vă placă și