Scribd
Upload
41 views2 pages

Mark Soriano

The petitioner filed a complaint against his employer, a private shipping company, with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for failing to promote him as promised and unilaterally reducing his salary. The POEA ruled in the petitioner's favor. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner argued the NLRC committed abuse of power by disregarding the modification made by the POEA. The Court affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that it did not abuse its discretion or act beyond its jurisdiction since the alleged contract amendments merely clarified and did not significantly alter the original terms.

Uploaded by

emen pena
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
41 views2 pages

Mark Soriano

The petitioner filed a complaint against his employer, a private shipping company, with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for failing to promote him as promised and unilaterally reducing his salary. The POEA ruled in the petitioner's favor. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner argued the NLRC committed abuse of power by disregarding the modification made by the POEA. The Court affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that it did not abuse its discretion or act beyond its jurisdiction since the alleged contract amendments merely clarified and did not significantly alter the original terms.

Uploaded by

emen pena
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

Clemente A.

Pena
Block 2A, 11-23724

NORBERTO SORIANO
vs.
OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN
O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989
Fernan, C.J.:

Statement of Issue/s: Whether or not the respondent National Labor Relation Commission
(NLRC) committed a severe misuse of authority and/or behaved without undue control by
disregarding the modification of the contract of employment rendered by private respondent
Knut Knutsen O.A.S.
Complaint’s Argument/s: Following the failure of the private respondent-employer to fulfill
its pledge to promote the petitioner to Second Engineer 's place and for the unilateral decision
to reduce the basic salary of the petitioner from US$ 800.00 to US$ 560.00, petitioner
Soriano filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Jobs Administration (POEA) against
the private respondent for payment of wage differential, overtime pay, etc., Having prompted
him to seek his repatriation to the Philippines, the POEA has therefore amended the amount
payable by the private respondent. Petitioner appealed to NLRC but dismissed the
respondent. Dissatisfied of the NLRC 's dismissal, Petitioner submits that the public
respondent committed a significant misuse of authority and/or behaved beyond or outside
control by disregarding the alteration of the private respondent's employment contract; and
submits that the private respondent altered its pay and overtime rate as evidenced by Crew
Agreement 4 and Exit Pass 5 constitutes a violation of Article 34 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines.

Respondent’s Argument/s:private respondent appealed POEA 's decision to the NLRC but
for lack of merit rejected the decision. They also denied the petitioner's appeal for his out-of-
date filing.

Decision of the Court: The Court affirmed the decision of NLRC. It did neither acted grave
abuse of discretion nor acted without excessive of jurisdiction jurisdiction by disregarding
the alteration of the employment contract made by Knut Knutsen O.A.S.

Ratio: Article 34 paragraphof the Labor Code reads:"Prohibited Practices — It shall be


unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority: (i) To substitute or alter
employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of
actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same
without the approval of the Department of Labor. In the bar case, both the Labor Arbiter and
the National Labor Relations Commission correctly interpreted the challenged annotations as
not constituting an alteration of the original employment contract but merely a clarification
of that which cannot be considered a breach of the above-mentioned statute by any stretch of
the imagination. Under similar conditions, this Court held that deviations from a statute 's
scope are specifically formulated as a general proposition. Nevertheless such construction
must be logical, sensible and equitable at all times. Therefore, to exclude from the exemption
changes, while they did not significantly alter the terms and conditions of the original letter
of credit, it was considered unfair and unjust, and not in line with the stated intent of the Law
on Margins. Article 34, paragraph 1 of the Labor Code specifically has the function of
protecting all parties. The alleged amendment served in the instant case to explain what was
decided by the parties and accepted by the Department of Labor. Governing otherwise would
go beyond the limits of reason and justice.

You might also like