Scribd
Upload
218 views2 pages

CASE DIGEST. Claudio Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Mgt. and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011

Petitioner Claudio Yap was employed as an electrician on a vessel owned by respondent companies under a 12-month contract. The vessel was sold after Yap had worked for 3 months. Yap argued he was illegally dismissed and entitled to pay for the remaining 9 months of his contract. The labor arbiter and NLRC agreed. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision but limited pay to 3 months under Section 10 of the Labor Code. However, the Supreme Court found this section unconstitutional as it violated equal protection. The Court ordered respondents to pay Yap his full salaries for the remaining 9 months of the contract.

Uploaded by

Alison Sarah Lanorio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
218 views2 pages

CASE DIGEST. Claudio Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Mgt. and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011

Petitioner Claudio Yap was employed as an electrician on a vessel owned by respondent companies under a 12-month contract. The vessel was sold after Yap had worked for 3 months. Yap argued he was illegally dismissed and entitled to pay for the remaining 9 months of his contract. The labor arbiter and NLRC agreed. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision but limited pay to 3 months under Section 10 of the Labor Code. However, the Supreme Court found this section unconstitutional as it violated equal protection. The Court ordered respondents to pay Yap his full salaries for the remaining 9 months of the contract.

Uploaded by

Alison Sarah Lanorio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CLAUDIO S. YAP vs. THENAMARIS SHIPS MANAGEMENT and INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES, INC.

G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011


Nachura, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Claudio S. Yap was employed as electrician of the vessel, M/T SEASCOUT on August 14, 2001
by Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. in behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping Limited. The contract of
employment entered into by Yap and Capt. Francisco B. Adviento, General Manager of Intermare, was
for a duration of 12 months. However, the said vessel was sold on November 8, 2001. The Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) was informed about the sale on December 6, 2001 in a
letter signed by Capt. Adviento. Yap, along with the other crewmembers, was informed by the Master of
the vessel that the same was sold and will be scrapped.

Yap received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus, extra bonus along with the scrapping bonus. But he
refused to accept the payment of one-month basic wage. He insisted that he was entitled to the
payment of the unexpired portion of his contract since he was illegally dismissed from employment. He
alleged that he opted for immediate transfer but to no avail.

Respondents contended that the dismissal of Yap was valid and insisted that following the sale of the
vessel, Yap signed off from the vessel on November 10, 2001 and was paid with his wages corresponding
to the months he work until the day he signed off plus other bonuses he received.

Petitioner filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Damages and Attorneys Fee before the Labor
Arbiter claiming that he was entitled to the corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract.

The Labor Arbiter rendered its decision in favour of petitioner finding the latter to have been
constructively and illegally dismissed by the respondents. The Labort Arbiter also found that
respondents acted in bad faith when they assured petitioner of re-embarkation but he was not able to
board one despite making several follow ups.

The Labor Arbiter hereby ordered respondents Thenamaris Ships Management, Intermare Maritime
Agencies, Inc. and Vulture Shipping Limited to pay jointly and severally complainant the sum of
$12,870.00 or equivalent in peso. A moral and exemplary damages amounting to $100,000.00 and
$50,000.00, repectively shall be awarded plus ten percent (10%) of total award as attorneys fees.

Respondents file a motion for reconsideration which the National Labor and Relations Commission
(NLRC) denied. Hence, a petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.

CA affirmed the decision of the National Labor and Relations Commission (NLRC )and the Labor Arbiter
with the modification that Claudio Yap be entitled to three (3) months of basic salary in the amount of
$4,290.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment as provided under Section 10 of R.A. No.
8042. Petitioner however questions the award of wages and assails that Section 10 as unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 10 paragraph 5 of R.A. 8042 is violative of substantive due process.
RATIO DECIDENDI:

Yes. The Court declared that the clause “or for three month for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less” provided in the paragraph 5 of Section 10 of the R.A. 8042 is unconstitutional for
being violative of the rights of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW’s) to equal protection of the laws.

FALLO / WHEREFORE CLAUSE:

The petition is granted. The Court of Appeals decision and resolution is hereby modified to the effect
that petitioner is awarded his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract
consisting of nine months computed at the rate of $1,430.00 per month. All other awards are hereby
affirmed. No costs.

You might also like