LORENZO T.
TANGGA-AN, Petitioner,
vs.
PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE
LLC, and CARLOS C. SALINAS, Respondents.
FACTS:
Tangga-an alleged that on January 31, 2002, he entered into an overseas employment
contract with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) for and in behalf of its foreign
employer, Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC. Under the employment contract, he was to be
employed for a period of six months as chief engineer of the vessel the S.S. "Kure". He was to be
paid a basic salary of US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay equivalent to 15 days a months or
US$2,500.00 per month and tonnage bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a month.
On March 13, 2002, the vessel berthed at a port in Japan to discharge its cargo. While the vessel
was still at sea, on its way to the U.S.A., the master required Tangga-an and the rest of the
Filipino Engineer Officers to report to his office where they were informed that they would be
repatriated on account of the delay in the cargo discharging in Japan, which was principally a
duty belonging to the deck officers. He imputed the delay to the non-readiness of the turbo
generator and the inoperation of the boom. However, upon checking the boom, they found it
operational.
The master required Tangga-an to submit a written explanation to which he did but blamed the
captain and the chief officer. He failed to explain why he did not personally supervise the
operation of the generator system and the conveyor boom during the cargo discharging
operations. His explanation not having been found satisfactory, respondents decided to terminate
Tangga-an’s services. Thus, a notice of dismissal was issued against Tangga-an.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Tangga-an was illegally dismissed; and
2) Whether or not petitioner should be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired
portion of his term of 6 months, or equivalent to four months plus the vacation leave and tonnage
bonuses.
RULING:
1) Yes. The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and opined that an
investigation should have been conducted to ferret out the truth instead of dismissing petitioner
outright. The NLRC affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal. It held that no notice of hearing
was served upon petitioner, and no hearing whatsoever was conducted. The respondents should
not have dispensed with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. However, there remains no
issue regarding illegal dismissal. The CA likewise adhered to the finding of illegal dismissal.
In spite of the consistent finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, respondents did not take
issue, which thus renders all pronouncements on the matter final. It is already settled that
petitioner’s employment was illegally terminated. As a result, his wages as well as allowances
were withheld without valid and legal basis.
2) In resolving petitioner’s monetary claims, the CA utterly misinterpreted the Court’s ruling in
Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd. The Court did not agree and hence
modified the judgment in said case. It held that, following the wording of Section 10 and its
ruling in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, when the
illegally dismissed employee’s employment contract has a term of less than one year, he/she
shall be entitled to recovery of salaries representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment
contract.
It is not disputed that private respondent’s employment contract in the instant case was for six (6)
months. Hence, we see no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that private respondent
should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.
Thus, petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his six-
month employment contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all his corresponding
monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided for and
guaranteed in his employment contract as part of his monthly salary and benefit package. These
benefits were guaranteed to be paid on a monthly basis, and were not made contingent.
As we have time and again held, "it is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally
dismissed employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits
and bonuses and general increases, to which he would have been normally entitled had he not
been dismissed and had not stopped working."
