LORENZO T.

TANGGA-AN, Petitioner,

vs.

PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and

CARLOS C. SALINAS, Respondents.

FACTS:

Tangga-an alleged that on January 31, 2002, he entered into an overseas employment
contract with

Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) for and in behalf of its foreign employer, Universe

Tankship Delaware, LLC. Under the employment contract, he was to be employed for a
period of six

months as chief engineer of the vessel the S.S. "Kure". He was to be paid a basic salary of

US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay equivalent to 15 days a months or US$2,500.00 per month
and

tonnage bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a month.

On February 11, 2002, Tangga-an was deployed. While performing his assigned task, he
noticed

that while they were loading liquid cargo at Cedros, Mexico, the vessel suddenly listed too
much at

the bow. At that particular time both the master and the chief mate went on shore leave
together,

which under maritime standard was prohibited. To avoid any conflict, he chose to ignore the

unbecoming conduct of the senior officers of the vessel.

On or about March 13, 2002, the vessel berthed at a port in Japan to discharge its cargo.

Thereafter, it sailed to the U.S.A. While the vessel was still at sea, the master required
Tangga-an

and the rest of the Filipino Engineer Officers to report to his office where they were informed
that

they would be repatriated on account of the delay in the cargo discharging in Japan, which
was
principally a duty belonging to the deck officers. He imputed the delay to the non-readiness
of the

turbo generator and the inoperation of the boom. Moreover, upon checking the boom, they
found the

same operational.

Upon verification, they found out that when the vessel berthed in Japan, the cargo hold was
not

immediately opened and the deck officers concerned did not prepare the stock. Moreover,
while

cargo discharging was ongoing, both the master and the chief mate again went on shore
leave

together and returned to the vessel only after midnight. To save face, they harped on the
Engine

Department for their mistake. Tangga-an and the other Engineering Officers were ordered to

disembark from the vessel on April 2, 2002 and thereafter repatriated. Hence, the
complaint.

ISSUE/S:

1) Whether or not Tangga-an was illegally dismissed

2) Whether or not petitioner should be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired
portion

of his sex-month employment contract, or equivalent to four months

RULING:

1) Yes. The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and opined that
an

investigation should have been conducted to ferret out the truth instead of dismissing
petitioner

outright. The NLRC affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal. It held that no notice of hearing
was served upon petitioner, and no hearing whatsoever was conducted. The respondents
should not

have dispensed with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. However, there remains
no issue

regarding illegal dismissal. The CA likewise adhered to the finding of illegal dismissal.

In spite of the consistent finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, respondents did not
take
issue, which thus renders all pronouncements on the matter final. It is already settled that

petitioners employment was illegally terminated. As a result, his wages as well as

allowances were

withheld without valid and legal basis.

2) In resolving petitioners monetary claims, the CA utterly misinterpreted the Courts ruling
in

Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd. The Court did not agree and hence

modified the judgment in said case. It held that, following the wording of Section 10 and its
ruling in

Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, when the illegally

dismissed employees employment contract has a term of less than one year, he/she shall
be

entitled to recovery of salaries representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment

contract.

It is not disputed that private respondents employment contract in the instant case was for
six (6)

months. Hence, we see no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that private
respondent

should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

Thus, petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his
six-

months employment contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all his
corresponding

monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided and
guaranteed in

his employment contract as part of his monthly salary and benefit package. These benefits
were

guaranteed to be paid on a monthly basis, and were not made contingent.

As we have time and again held, "it is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally
dismissed

employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits and
bonuses

and general increases, to which he would have been normally entitled had he not been
dismissed
and had not stopped working."

ALERT SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC. AND/OR MANUEL D. DASIG, Petitioners,
v. SAIDALI PASAWILAN, WILFREDO VERCELES AND MELCHOR BULUSAN, Respondents.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS:

In the case at bar, respondent security guards were relieved from their posts because they
filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against their employer for money claims due to
underpayment of wages. Respondents aver that because they were underpaid, they filed a
complaint for money claims against Alert Security. As a result they were relieved from their
posts in the DOST and were not given new assignments. Petitioners, on the other hand, deny
that they dismissed the respondents. They claimed that from the DOST, respondents were
merely detailed at the Metro Rail Transit, Inc. at the LRTA Compound in Aurora Blvd. because
the wages therein were already adjusted to the latest minimum wage. Respondents,
however, failed to report at the LRTA and instead kept loitering at the DOST and tried to
convince other security guards to file complaints against Alert Security, hence they filed a
termination report. LA stated that respondents were illegally dismissed but NLRC set aside
the decision. CA reversed the decision of NLRC and denied MR hence this case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed.

HELD:

LABOR LAW:

The Supreme Court found that this was not a valid cause for dismissal. The Labor Code
enumerates several just and authorized causes for a valid termination of employment. An
employee asserting his right and asking for minimum wage is not among those causes.As a
rule, an employer without any just or authorized cause cannot terminate employee. No less
than the 1987 Constitution in Section 3, Article 13 guarantees security of tenure for workers
and because of this, an employee may only be terminated for just or authorized causes that
must comply with the due process requirements mandated by law. Hence, employers are
barred from arbitrarily removing their workers whenever and however they want. The law
sets the valid grounds for termination as well as the proper procedure to take when
terminating the services of an employee. In the case at bar, respondents were relieved from
their posts because they filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against their employer for
money claims due to underpayment of wages. This reason is unacceptable and illegal.
Nowhere in the law providing for the just and authorized causes of termination of
employment is there any direct or indirect reference to filing a legitimate complaint for
money claims against the employer as a valid ground for termination.

LABOR LAW:

Petitioners aver that respondents were merely transferred to a new post wherein the wages
are adjusted to the current minimum wage standards. They maintain that the respondents
voluntarily abandoned their jobs when they failed to report for duty in the new location.
Assuming that this contention was true, the Supreme Court held that there was no
abandonment of work. For there to be abandonment: first, there should be a failure of the
employee to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and second, there should
be a showing that the employee intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. The
fact that petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal is indicative of their intention to
remain employed with private respondent. On the first element of failure to report for work,
in this case, there was no showing that respondents were notified of their new assignments.
Granting that the Duty Detail Orders were indeed issued, they served no purpose unless the
intended recipients of the orders are informed of such. Therefore, the Court held that there
was no abandonment of work in this case

ARCHBUILD MASTERS AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS. NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioners entered into a contract with the government of the United States of America to
lay water pipes inside the U.S. Naval Base in Subic, Zambales. This undertaking involved the
digging of ditches, laying of pipes and the filling up of all excavations resulting therefrom.
Considering that the project would require the transporting of men and construction
materials, petitioners hired the services of drivers one of whom was private respondent
Rogelio Cayanga. His employment papers specifically provided that he was being hired as
driver for the Subic project.

According to petitioners, in December 1989 the phase of work for which private respondent
was hired neared its completion so that a lesser number of workers and construction
materials were required to be transported to the digging sites, which meant fewer trips to
the construction site and a reduction in the number of drivers. Thus petitioners posted a list
of employees whose services were no longer needed by reason of the reduction in
manpower due to the completion of a phase of the Subic project. The list included private
respondent.

He contended that the supposed "project completion" cited by petitioners as the ground for
his dismissal was just used by the latter to immediately terminate his employment. He
insisted that the real reason for his dismissal was his absences allegedly incurred by him
without proper leave, and that the latter only used "project completion" to camouflage his
unlawful removal so that he could no longer be heard on the real reason for his dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether there was illegal dismissal

HELD:

It is not disputed that private respondent was a project employee of ARMACON. As such he
was employed in connection with a particular project the completion of which had been
determined at the time of his employment.Consequently, as a project employee of
ARMACON, his employment may be terminated upon the completion of the project as there
would be no further need for his services. Since a project employee's work depends on the
availability of projects, necessarily the duration of his employment is not permanent but
coterminous with the work to which he is assigned. It would be extremely burdensome for
the employer, who depends on the availability of projects, to carry him as a permanent
employee and pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work on. The rationale
behind this is that once the project is completed it would be unjust to require the employer
to maintain these employees in their payroll. To do so would make the employee a privileged
retainer who collects payment from his employer for work not done. This is extremely unfair
and amounts to labor coddling at the expense of management.

However, for project workers employed in the construction industry like the one before us,
employers are allowed to reduce their work force into a number suited for the remaining
work to be done upon the completion or proximate accomplishment of the construction
project. The employment of a project worker hired for a specific phase of a construction
project is understood to be coterminus with the completion of such phase and not upon the
accomplishment of the whole project. Thus, a worker hired for a particular phase of a
construction project can be dismissed upon the completion of such phase. Project workers in
the construction industry may also be terminated as the phase of a construction project
draws nearer to completion when their services are no longer needed provided they are not
replaced. Policy Instruction No. 20 expressly recognizes these peculiar employment
arrangements in the construction industry because each phase in these projects requires a
varied number of workers. It is recognized in this jurisdiction that the number of maintained
workers in a particular construction project must be flexible and must conform with the
requirements of each phase that remains unaccomplished.

However, if a project employee is dismissed his removal must still comply with the
substantive and procedural requirements of due process. Sec. 3, Art. XIII, of the Constitution
mandates that the State shall afford full protection to labor and declares that all workers
shall be entitled to security of tenure. The fundamental guarantee of security of tenure and
due process dictates that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just and authorized
cause provided by law and after due process has been properly complied with. Therefore, a
project employee hired for a specific task also enjoys security of tenure. A termination of his
employment must be for a lawful cause and must be done in a manner which affords him
the proper notice and hearing. Thus, a project employee must be duly furnished a written
notice of his impending dismissal and must be given the opportunity to dispute the legality
of his removal.

In the case before us, we are convinced that private respondent Rogelio Cayanga was
illegally dismissed by petitioners. In pursuing this appeal petitioners rely on Policy
Instruction No. 20 to justify the dismissal of private respondent. They maintain that private
respondent's discharge was necessary because as the Subic project neared completion less
and less employees were needed to finish the undertaking. They insist that Policy Instruction
No. 20 provides the legal basis for his removal and assert that they faithfully complied with
all the legal requirements therefor.

To justly dismiss private respondent under Policy Instruction No. 20 it is incumbent upon
petitioners to show proof of the proximate completion of the Subic project when respondent
Cayanga questioned the veracity of such an allegation. In the case at bench, petitioners
failed to present substantial evidence to prove the proximate completion of the Subic
project. A mere claim of project completion is not sufficient to terminate a project worker's
employment without adequate proof to demonstrate such claims. In termination cases, like
the one at bench, the burden of proving that an employee has been lawfully dismissed lies
with the employer. Moreover, to allow employers to exercise their prerogative to terminate a
project worker's employment based on gratuitous assertions of project completion would
destroy the constitutionally protected right of labor to security of tenure.