Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81092:gr-175209-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:49:52+00:00

Document:
ROLANDO L. CERVANTES, Petitioner, v.PAL MARITIME CORPORATION and/or WESTERN SHIPPING AGENCIES, PTE., LTD., Respondent.
This treats of the petition for rev1ew filed by petitioner Rolando Cervantes assailing the Decision1 and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 14 August 2006 and 26 October 2006, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 76756.
At the center of this controversy is the question whether petitioner resigned or was terminated from his employment.
3. Has no awareness on purpose of key documents such as ship board oil pollution emergency plan.
On 13 October 1995, petitioner was repatriated to Manila.
In their Answer, respondents alleged that petitioner voluntarily and freely pre-terminated his own contract.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Rolando L. Cervantes to have been illegally dismissed and ordering respondents PAL Maritime Corporation and Western Shipping Agencies PTE, LTD to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of US$7,440.00, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, representing his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract, plus 10% thereof as attorneys fees, all as discussed and computed above.
The Labor Arbiter focused on two (2) correspondences: 1) the letter-communication dated 20 September 1995 issued by respondent Western Shipping which terminated petitioners employment, and 2) the subsequent reply of petitioner acceding to Western Shippings decision to terminate him. The Labor Arbiter construed these correspondences as involuntary repatriation of petitioner.
On appeal, the Labor Arbiters Decision was reversed by the First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC initially referred the case to another Labor Arbiter, Thelma M. Concepcion (Labor Arbiter Concepcion) for review and submission of a report pursuant to Article 218 (c)10 of the Labor Code. Labor Arbiter Concepcion found that petitioner was not dismissed from service but that he opted to be relieved from his post. This finding was adopted by the NLRC. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC in an Order dated 26 December 2002, prompting him to file a petition before the Court of Appeals.
Finding that petitioner voluntarily resigned, the Court of Appeals, on 14 August 2006, denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to his claims the (sic) under the POEA Employment Contract which arose from his illegal termination and what amount of evidence is required from the petitioner to prove their entitlement thereto.
We shall first tackle the procedural issue raised.
Petitioner points out that the failure of respondent to file the required Joint Declaration Under Oath on the appeal bond warrants the dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection. On the other hand, respondents brush aside the late submission of their Joint Declaration Under Oath as a mere technicality.
While the Rule mandates the submission of a joint declaration, this may be liberally construed especially in cases where there is substantial compliance with the Rule. When the NLRC issued an order directing respondents to file their Joint Declaration, the latter immediately complied. Thus, there was only a late submission of the Joint Declaration. There was substantial compliance when respondents manifested their willingness to comply, and in fact complied with, the directive of the NLRC.
As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, respondents had posted a surety bond equivalent to the monetary award and had filed the notice of appeal and appeal memorandum, all within the reglementary period. All these show substantial compliance with the appeal requirement, considered as they must be, together with late submission of the Joint Declaration.
In their Comment, respondents argue that they and the owners of the vessel never initiated the repatriation to Manila of petitioner. All the owners of the vessel did was to advise respondents of their findings on petitioners incompetence, negligence, and inability to render satisfactory service, and give petitioner one month to take corrective actions on board the vessel. Respondents, on the other hand, merely relayed to petitioner, through a telex message, said findings and the message of the owners of the vessel.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, such that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.18 This is precisely what obtained in this case.
ANYHOW TO AVOID REPETITION [ON] MORE HARSH REPORTS TO COME. BETTER ARRANGE MY RELIEVER AND C/O BUSTILLO RELIEVER ALSO. UPON ARR NEXT USA LOADING PORT FOR THEIR SATISFACTION.
HV NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT YR DECISION. TKS ANYHOW FOR RELIEVING ME IN NEXT CONVENIENT PORT WILL EASE THE BURDEN THAT I HV FELT ONBOARD. REST ASSURE VSL WILL BE TURNED OVER PROPERLY TO INCOMING MASTER.
The statements of petitioner were simple and straightforward. There is no merit to his claim that he was forced to resign due to extreme pressure. Only two (2) days had elapsed from the time petitioner received a copy of the complaint from the owners of the vessel until his letter demanding his relief. The telex message outlining numerous complaints against petitioner probably bruised his ego, causing petitioner to react impulsively by resigning.
Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he and the Filipino crew members were being subjected to racial discrimination on board. Petitioner presented a letter-petition against a Greek technician who allegedly maltreated Filipino crew members. However, there was no showing that the Greek technician spearheaded nor had any participation in the complaint of Colonial Shipping against petitioner.
In connection with the aforementioned deficiencies, the complainant was given by the owner one month to take corrective measures to improve the operational and maintenance standards on board the vessel. x x x. Thereafter, the complainant was informed of the aforesaid complaint by the respondent as shown in the telefax message dated July 31, 1995 x x x. While the complainant denied the accusations of the owners he made a counter charge that the owners are racists x x x.
x x x Anyhow to avoid repetition on more harsh reports to come, better arranges my reliever and c/o Bustillo reliever also. Upon ARR next USA loading port for their satisfaction x x x.
The foregoing exchange of communications clearly shows that complainant was not dismissed from the service but he opted to be relieved from his post as master. While it is true that his resignation was an offshoot of the complaint of the shipowners but the latter were merely requesting the complainant and the chief officers to improve in their performance. The dismissal aspect was not dismissed at all. It was complainant who brought out the idea and which was accepted by the shipowner as shown in the telefax message elated September 20, 1995 x x x.
The rule that filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation does not hold true in this case. The filing of the complaint one year after his alleged termination, coupled with the clear tenor or his resignation letter should be taken to mean that petitioner's filing or the illegal dismissal case was a mere afterthought.
In fine, we do not find any persuasive or cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 14 August 2006 Decision and the 26 October 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76756 are hereby AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring. Rollo, pp. 24-33.
2 See Contract of Employment. CA rollo, p. 67.
12 Now Rule VI, Section 4 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.
13 SECTION 6. Bond. In case the decision of a Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator and Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
14 G.R. No. 170416, 22 June 2011, 652 SCRA 492 citing Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 159372, 27 July 2007, 528 SCRA 300.
15 University Plans Incorporated v. Solano, id. at 505-506 citing Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, id. at 312.
16 Dacuital v. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation, G.R. No. 176748, 1 September 2010, 629 SCRA 702, 711-712 citing Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc., G. R . No. 157966, 31 January 2008, 543 SCRA 344, 356-357.
18 Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Dy, G.R. No. 164860, 2 February 2010, 611 SCRA 329, 336-337; Bilbao v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, G. R. No. 183915, 14 December 2011, 662 SCRA 540, 549.
19 CA rollo, pp. 33-35.

References: In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.