Scribd
Upload
157 views2 pages

Philippine Singapore Transit Vs NLRC GR No. 95449, August 1997

Captain Wenefredo Estrada was hired by Philippine-Singapore Transport Services Inc. (PSTS) to serve as master of the vessel Sea Carrier I. After just two months, he was informed he was being relieved of his duties and repatriated to the Philippines without explanation. Estrada filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal. PSTS claimed Estrada was incompetent, while Estrada said he refused an order to tow another vessel that he believed was unsafe, and his termination resulted from that refusal. Both the POEA and NLRC ruled in Estrada's favor, finding his dismissal illegal as the alleged incompetence was unproven and his refusal to tow was justified. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling,

Uploaded by

Ambra Kaye Ariola
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
157 views2 pages

Philippine Singapore Transit Vs NLRC GR No. 95449, August 1997

Captain Wenefredo Estrada was hired by Philippine-Singapore Transport Services Inc. (PSTS) to serve as master of the vessel Sea Carrier I. After just two months, he was informed he was being relieved of his duties and repatriated to the Philippines without explanation. Estrada filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal. PSTS claimed Estrada was incompetent, while Estrada said he refused an order to tow another vessel that he believed was unsafe, and his termination resulted from that refusal. Both the POEA and NLRC ruled in Estrada's favor, finding his dismissal illegal as the alleged incompetence was unproven and his refusal to tow was justified. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling,

Uploaded by

Ambra Kaye Ariola
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

Caption:

Title of the case: Philippine-Singapore Transport Services Inc. v. NLRC


Citation: G.R. No. 95449
Date Promulgated: August 18, 1997
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission and Capt. Wenefredo N. Estrada
Petitioners: Philippine-Singapore Transport Services Inc.
Ponente: Justice Justo Torres Jr.

Facts:

On November 24, 1987, herein petitioner Philippine-Singapore Transport Services, Inc, a


manning agency, hired private respondent Estrada as master of the vessel Sea Carrier I for its
foreign principal, Intra-Oil Supplies Sbn Bhd.

On January 21, 1988 or barely two months following his employment, Estrada was informed by
a representative of Modest Shipping, an agent of Intra-Oil, that he would be relieved from his
employment and repatriated back to the Philippines. He was not given any explanation or reason
for his relief. On that same day, someone took over as captain of Sea Carrier I, which prompted
Estrada to relinquish his post. On the following day, he returned to Manila. Upon his arrival, he
went to Petitioner PSTS and later on informed him that his service was terminated due to his
incompetence and was also denied his claim for the sums of money.

On February 10, 1988, Estrada filed with the POEA Adjudication Department a complaint
against PSTS and Intra-Oil for illegal dismissal.

PSTS alleged the dismissal was due to Estrada’s incompetence in handling the vessel for any tow
or even approaching the oil drilling platforms and inability to foresee and anticipate the quantity
of ropes to be used.

Estrada claimed in his position paper that his termination was an offshoot of his justified refusal
to obey the order of the charterer’s to tow another of its vessel. During the voyage from
Singapore to Bombay, his refusal to tow the barge was due to the ropes of Sea Carrier I having
an extreme wear and tear, hence the ropes were worn out and inadequate to maneuver a barge in
close water situation which then would result to damage, based on his professional opinion.

On June 7, 1989, the POEA Adjudication Department ruled in favor of the private respondent by
holding that his dismissal from service was illegal. The Philippine-Singapore Transport Services
is rendered to pay Estrada the sum of $13,530.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment
(representing Estrada's salaries covering the unexpired portion of his contract of employment)
plus the sum of P10,000 as refund for the airplane expenses.

On July 12, 1989 PSTS appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, however, through its questioned
Resolution dated August 17, 1990, 2 held that the charge of private respondent's incompetence
was unmeritorious. The real reason for private respondent's repatriation was due to his refusal to
tow another barge belonging to the charterer and which refusal had been shown to be justified
and fully explained by the private respondent.

Hence, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA and dismissed the appeal of petitioner for
the lack of merit.

Issue(s):
1) Whether or not private respondent, Wenefredo N. Estrada, is validly dismissed from the
service on the grounds of alleged incompetence as master of the Sea Carrier I.
2) Whether or not the Philippine-Singapore Transport Services’ prerogative right to dismiss
was legally exercised.

Ruling:
1) The alleged incompetence cannot be utilized as a valid and justifiable reason to dismiss
the private respondent from employment. Hence, the dismissal is invalid.
2) The allegation of petitioner that the private respondent committed neglect of duty or
serious misconduct for refusing to obey the order of the charterer to tow the barge is
unmeritorious. Hence, the prerogative right to dismiss was not legally exercised. The
petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

You might also like