Case Digest: Wallem Maritime vs. NLRC, 263 SCRA 174, G.R. No. 108433

 

Wallem Maritime vs. NLRC, 263 SCRA 174, G.R. No. 108433, October 15, 1996

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Macatuno and Gurimbao (respondents) were dismissed from work due to an incident wherein they allegedly caused harm to an apprentice. The captain summoned private respondent and Gurimbao. With the head of the deck crew (bosun), they went to the captain's cabin. The captain told them to pack up their things as their services were being terminated. They would disembark at the next port, the Port of Ube, from where they would be flown home to the Philippines, the repatriation expenses to be shouldered by them.

The two attempted to explain their side of the incident but the captain ignored them and firmly told them to go home. Before disembarking, they were entrusted by the bosun with a letter of their fellow crew members, addressed to Captain Diño, attesting to their innocence.

At the Port of Ube, an agent of the company handed them their plane tickets and accompanied them the following day to the Fukuoka Airport where they boarded a Cathay Pacific airplane bound for Manila. The evidence presented to support this claim was a copy of the official logbook. It stated that the respondents were acting violently. The logbook was objected to due to being hearsay evidence and was affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether or not captain of the M/T Fortuna may discharge private respondent and Gurimbao without just cause.

RULING

No.

Under the law, Art 637 of Title VII Commercial Contracts for Transportation Overland states that “ Neither can the captain discharge a sailor during the time of his contract except for just cause: (1) the perpetration of a crime, which disturbs order on the vessel; (2) Repeated offenses of insubordination, of want of discipline, or of non- fulfilment of the service; (3) Incapacity and repeated negligence in the fulfillment of the service he should render; (4) habitual drunkenness; (5) any occurrence, which incapacitates the sailor to perform the work under his charge, with the exception of the provisions contained in Art 644; and (6) desertion.

In this case, no investigation report was presented to prove that complainant was given the opportunity to air his side of the incident. Further, copy of the alleged official logbook was not properly authenticated. The authentication is necessary specially so since this document is the only piece of evidence submitted by respondents.