Sulpicio Lines vs NLRC 254 SCRA 506

Facts:
Petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., owner of MV Cotabato Princess, on January 15, 1992 dismissed
private respondent Jaime Cagatan, a messman of the said vessel, allegedly for being absent
without leave for a prolonged period of six (6) months.
As a result of his dismissal, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) through its National Capital Region
Arbitration Branch in Manila.
Petitioner, on June 25, 1992, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue, stating,
among other things, that the case for illegal dismissal should have been lodged with the NLRCs
Regional Branch No. VII (Cebu).
Labor Arbiter denied petitioners Motion to Dismiss, holding that:
Considering that the complainant is a ship steward, traveled on board respondents ship along the
Manila-Enstancia-Iloilo-Zamboanga-Cotabato vice-versa route, Manila can be said to be part of
the complainants territorial workplace
NLRC found petitioners appeal unmeritorious and sustained the Labor Arbiters August 21,
1992 ruling, explaining that under the New NLRC Rules, the Commission or the Labor Arbiter
before whom the case is pending may order a change of venue.
Petitioner comes to this Court for relief, in the form of a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, contending that public respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued its assailed rulings.
It is petitioners principal contention that a ship or vessel as workplace is an extension of its
homeport or principal place of business, and that being part of the territory of the homeport,
(such) vessel is governed to a large extent by the laws and is under the jurisdiction of the
homeport. Based on this submission, petitioner avers that its vessel-as-workplace is under the
territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Arbitration branch where (its) . . . principal office is
located, which is Branch VII, located in Cebu City.
Issue: Is the contention correct?
Held:
We disagree.
As early as 1911, this Court held that the question of venue essentially relates to the trial and
touches more upon the convenience of the parties, rather than upon the substance and merits of
the case. Our permissive rules underlying provisions on venue are intended to assure
convenience for the plaintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. This axiom all
the more finds applicability in cases involving labor and management because of the principle,
paramount in our jurisdiction, that the State shall afford full protection to labor. Even in cases
where venue has been stipulated by the parties by contract, this Court has not hesitated to set
aside agreements on venue if the same would lead to a situation so grossly inconvenient to one
party as to virtually negate his claim.
Section 1, Rule IV of the NLRC Rules of Procedure on Venue, provides that:
Section 1. Venue - (a) All cases in which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may
be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the
complainant/petitioner.
This provision is obviously permissive
Moreover, Section 1, Rule IV of the 1990 NLRC Rules additionally provides that, for purposes
of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly
assigned when the cause of action arose. Since the private respondents regular place of
assignment is the vessel MV Cotabato Princess which plies the Manila-Estancia-Iloilo-
Zamboanga-Cotabato route, we are of the opinion that Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec was
correct in concluding that Manila could be considered part of the complainants territorial
workplace.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 117650. March 7, 1996]
SULPICIO LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and JAIME CAGATAN, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
Petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., owner of MV Cotabato Princess, on January 15, 1992 dismissed
private respondent Jaime Cagatan, a messman of the said vessel, allegedly for being absent
without leave for a prolonged period of six (6) months.
As a result of his dismissal, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) through its National Capital Region
Arbitration Branch in Manila, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-06-3163-92.i[1]
Responding to the said complaint, petitioner, on June 25, 1992, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of improper venue, stating, among other things, that the case for illegal dismissal should
have been lodged with the NLRCs Regional Branch No. VII (Cebu), as its main office was
located in Cebu City.ii[2]
In an Order dated August 21, 1992 Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec of the NLRC-NCR denied
petitioners Motion to Dismiss, holding that:
Considering that the complainant is a ship steward, traveled on board respondents ship along the
Manila-Enstancia-Iloilo-Zamboanga-Cotabato vice-versa route, Manila can be said to be part of
the complainants territorial workplace.iii[3]
The aforequoted Order was seasonably appealed to the NLRC by petitioner. On February 28,
1994, respondent NLRC found petitioners appeal unmeritorious and sustained the Labor
Arbiters August 21, 1992 ruling, explaining that under the New NLRC Rules, the Commission
or the Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending may order a change of venue.iv[4] Finding
no grave abuse of discretion in the Labor Arbiters assailed Order, respondent NLRC
emphasized that:
[T]he complainant instituted the Action in Manila where he resides. Hence, we see no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the labor arbiter in denying the respondents Motion to Dismiss
as We find support in the basic principle that the State shall afford protection to labor and that
the NLRC is not bound by strict technical rules of procedure.v[5]
Undaunted, petitioner sought a reconsideration of the above Order, which the public respondent
denied in its Resolution dated July 22, 1994.vi[6] Consequently, petitioner comes to this Court for
relief, in the form of a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
contending that public respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when it issued its assailed rulings.vii[7]
It is petitioners principal contention that a ship or vessel as workplace is an extension of its
homeport or principal place of business, and that being part of the territory of the homeport,
(such) vessel is governed to a large extent by the laws and is under the jurisdiction of the
homeport.viii[8] Based on this submission, petitioner avers that its vessel-as-workplace is under
the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Arbitration branch where (its) . . . principal office is
located, which is Branch VII, located in Cebu City.ix[9]
We disagree.
As early as 1911, this Court held that the question of venue essentially relates to the trial and
touches more upon the convenience of the parties, rather than upon the substance and merits of
the case.x[10] Our permissive rules underlying provisions on venue are intended to assure
convenience for the plaintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. This axiom all
the more finds applicability in cases involving labor and management because of the principle,
paramount in our jurisdiction, that the State shall afford full protection to labor.xi[11]
Even in cases where venue has been stipulated by the parties by contract, this Court has not
hesitated to set aside agreements on venue if the same would lead to a situation so grossly
inconvenient to one party as to virtually negate his claim. In Sweet Lines vs. Teves,xii[12]
involving a contract of adhesion, we held that:
An agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the claimants, such
as the private respondents herein. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue
of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote the ends of
justice. Considering the expense and trouble a passenger residing outside Cebu City would incur
to prosecute a claim in the City of Cebu, he would most probably decide not to file the action at
all. The condition will thus defeat, instead of enhance, the ends of justice. Upon the other hand,
petitioner had branches or offices in the respective ports of call of the vessels and can afford to
litigate in any of these places. Hence, the filing of the suit in the CFI of Misamis Oriental, as
was done in the instant case will not cause inconvenience to, much less prejudice petitioner.xiii[13]
In the case at bench, it is not denied that while petitioner maintains its principal office in Cebu
City, it retains a major booking and shipping office in Manila from which it earns considerable
revenue, and from which it hires and trains a significant number of its workforce. Its virulent
insistence on holding the proceedings in the NLRCs regional arbitration branch in Cebu City is
obviously a ploy to inconvenience the private respondent, a mere steward who resides in Metro
Manila, who would obviously not be able to afford the frequent trips to Cebu City in order to
follow up his case.
Even the provisions cited by petitioner in support of its contention that venue of the illegal
dismissal case lodged by private respondent is improperly laid, would not absolutely support his
claim that respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the private
respondent to file his case with the NCR arbitration branch.
Section 1, Rule IV of the NLRC Rules of Procedure on Venue, provides that:
Section 1. Venue - (a) All cases in which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may
be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the
complainant/petitioner.
This provision is obviously permissive, for the said section uses the word may, allowing a
different venue when the interests of substantial justice demand a different one. In any case, as
stated earlier, the Constitutional protection accorded to labor is a paramount and compelling
factor, provided the venue chosen is not altogether oppressive to the employer.
Moreover, Section 1, Rule IV of the 1990 NLRC Rules additionally provides that, for purposes
of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly
assigned when the cause of action arose. Since the private respondents regular place of
assignment is the vessel MV Cotabato Princess which plies the Manila-Estancia-Iloilo-
Zamboanga-Cotabato route, we are of the opinion that Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec was
correct in concluding that Manila could be considered part of the complainants territorial
workplace. Respondent NLRC, therefore, committed no grave abuse of discretion in sustaining
the labor arbiters denial of herein petitioners Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.





i[1] Rollo, p. 13.
ii[2] Petitioners basis is Section 1, Rules IV of the 1990 NLRC Rules of Procedure which states
the following:
Section 1 .F Venue. - (a) All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may
be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the
complainant/petitioner.
For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the
employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where
the employee is supposed to report back after temporary detail, assignment or travel.

iii[3] Rollo, p. 17.
iv[4] Id., at 19.
v[5] Id., at 19-20.
vi[6] Id., at 23.
vii[7] Id., at 5.
viii[8] Id., at 7.
ix[9] Id., at 8.
x[10] Manila Railroad Company vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523 (1911). See also, Philippine
Banking Corporation vs. Tensuan, 228 SCRA 385, at 396(1993).
xi[11] Const., Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
xii[12] 83 SCRA 361 (1978).
xiii[13] Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Teves, 83 SCRA 361 (1978).