Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. Vs Chua, Jr. G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017 Facts

TRANSGLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. vs CHUA, JR.
G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017
FACTS:
Transglobal and Goodwood hired respondent Vicente D. Chua, Jr. (Chua) as Able Seaman on
board M.T. WAWASAN RUBY. While at the port of Mailiao, Taiwan on January 26, 2012, Chua
and his four (4) companions left the vessel for shore leave from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. When
they returned at around 11:40 p.m., the ship captain was infuriated. On January 30, 2012, the
ship captain called Chua and the others, and were served with a written reprimand regarding
the incident. However, they refused to sign and acknowledge receipt of the reprimand and,
subsequently, the vessel's logbook entry on the matter. Thereafter, Chua and the others
disembarked and returned to the Philippines.
Chua filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, withholding of documents,
moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against petitioners. Chua alleged that he and
his companions returned later than their shore leave because of a problem with their
contracted vehicle. They immediately went to the ship's office to return their passports and
documents. However, the ship captain was furious and asked to explain their tardiness. Chua
also alleged that they declined to sign the written reprimand for it contained falsehoods. They
were repatriated on February 2, 2012 without authorized and justifiable reason and without
notice of termination.
The petitioners, on the other hand, maintained that Chua was dismissed for a just cause. His
refusal to sign the written reprimand is a clear act of insubordination and disrespect towards
superior officers. A General Report regarding the incident was entered in the vessel log, which
Chua and the others also refused to sign. Petitioners alleged that they agreed to be dismissed in
the presence of the vessel's master, Chief Officer and Chief Engineer.
Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Chua was discharged for just cause, but was not served with the
required notice of termination as he agreed to be dismissed. His refusal to sign his receipt of
the written reprimand and the vessel's logbook despite being instructed by the vessel master or
superior officers constitutes insubordination.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the findings of the LA that Chua was
legally dismissed, but awarded nominal damages for being dismissed without due process. It
considered Chua's "arguing and misbehaving" after he returned from shore leave as
insubordination which is punishable by dismissal under the POEA-SEC.
The CA and set aside the decision of the NLRC. The CA found that the NLRC overlooked pieces
of evidence decisive of the controversy. It held that while the order to sign the receipt of
written reprimand may be lawful or reasonable, the same, however, does not pertain to Chua's
duty which he had been engaged to discharge. It ruled that Chua's dismissal was
disproportionate to the act complained of, that is his refusal to sign receipt of a written
reprimand.
Upon denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, the petitioners elevated the case before the
Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
1. Were Chua’s acts of (a) to sign his receipt of the written reprimand and the vessel's
logbook despite being instructed by the vessel master or superior officers and (b)
arguing and misbehaving when he returned after his shore leave constitute
insubordination which is a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code of the
Philippines?
2. Was Chua illegally dismissed?
RULING:
1. NO. Insubordination or willful disobedience, as a just cause for the dismissal of an
employee, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's
assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and
perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made
known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge.
Moreover, a willful or intentional disobedience of such rule, order or instruction justifies

dismissal only where such rule, order or instruction is (1) reasonable and lawful, (2)
sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) connected with the duties which the
employee has been engaged to discharge.
By virtue of the POEA-SEC, Chua is indeed bound to obey the lawful commands of the
captain of the ship, but only as long as these pertain to his duties. The CA correctly
opined that there is no relevance to the order to sign the documents in Chua's
performance of his duty as a seaman. We find that the pieces of evidence presented
are insufficient to establish that Chua's refusal was characterized by a wrongful and
perverse mental attitude rendering his act inconsistent with proper subordination.
Chua had explained that he refused to sign the written reprimand for he maintained
that the same contained falsehoods. Based on the statement of witnesses, it was
someone else who started arguing and misbehaving before the Master when asked for a
reason for not signing the written reprimand.
2. YES. It was indicated in the ship’s logbook that Chua refused to sign the receipt of the
written reprimand, and that he was warned of immediate dismissal if he refused to sign
the logbook entry. It can be logically concluded that Chua's dismissal was contemplated
only after his refusal to sign the logbook entry. On the other hand, Chua's arguing and
misbehaving when he returned after his shore leave was not sufficiently established.
As established, the order to sign the receipt of written reprimand does not pertain to
Chua's duty which he had been engaged to discharge. It ruled that Chua's dismissal
was disproportionate to the act complained of, that is his refusal to sign receipt of a
written reprimand. Chua's refusal was not characterized by a wrongful and perverse
mental attitude rendering his act inconsistent with proper subordination.
It was held in Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. (INPORT) v. National Labor
Relations Commission:
We believe that not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an
employee of a lawful work-connected order of the employer or its representative is
reasonably penalized with dismissal. For one thing, Article 282 (a) refers to
"serious misconduct or willful disobedience". There must be reasonable proportionality
between, on the one hand, the willful disobedience by the employee and, on the other
hand, the penalty imposed therefor.
Assuming arguendo that the commands of the ship captain to sign the receipt of the
written reprimand and to sign the ship's logbook are lawful commands supposed to be
obeyed by the complement of a ship, Chua's refusal to do the same does not warrant
the supreme penalty of dismissal. This Court finds that dismissal is too harsh a penalty
to be imposed due to Chua's supposed disobedience. As discussed, petitioners failed to
establish that Chua's disobedience was characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental
attitude given that he believed the written reprimand and logbook contained falsities for
he maintained that he had an explanation for his late arrival.
To amount to a valid dismissal, an erring seafarer must be handed a written notice of

the charge against him and must be given the opportunity to explain himself unless, of
course, there is a clear and existing danger against the safety of the crew or the vessel
in which case notice may be dispensed with.
In this case, no hearing was conducted respecting Chua's alleged insubordination. The
pieces of evidence presented were also silent about whether Chua was given the
opportunity to explain or defend himself. There was also no showing of imminent
danger to the crew or the vessel, so that the required notice may be dispensed with.

Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. Vs Chua, Jr. G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. Vs Chua, Jr. G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. Vs Chua, Jr. G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSGLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. vs CHUA, JR.

G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017

Moreover, a willful or intentional disobedience of such rule, order or instruction justifies

To amount to a valid dismissal, an erring seafarer must be handed a written notice of

You might also like