Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs.

Doza,
G.R. No. 175558, February 8, 2012
Carpio, j.:
Facts:
Petitioner deployed De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta to work on board the vessel MV Wisdom Star.
On December 3 1998, Skippers alleges that De Garcia smelling strongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of
Gabriel Oleszek, MV Wisdom Stars’ Master. Skippers claims that he was rude and shouted noisily to the
master. De Gracia left the master’s cabin after a few minutes and was heard shouting very loudly
somewhere down the corridors. The incident was evidenced by the Captain’s Report sent on said date.
Furthermore, Skippers also claim that on January 22, 1999, Aprosta, De Gracia, Lata and Daza
arrived in the master’s cabin and demanded immediate repatriation because they were not satisfied
with the ship. De Gracia, et al. threatened that they may become crazy any moment and demanded for
all outstanding payments due to them. The incident is evidenced by a telex of Cosmoship MV Wisdom to
skippers but had conflicting dates. De Gracia claims that Skippers failed to remit their respective
allotments, compelling them to vent their grievances with the Romanian Seafarers Union. On January
28, 1999, the Filipino seafarers were unceremoniously discharged and immediately repatriated. Upon
arrival in the Philippines, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the LA.

Issue:
Whether or not the seafarer’s demand for immediate repatriation can be considered an act of
voluntary resignation.

Held/Ratio:
For a worker's dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both procedural and
substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes procedural due process,
while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes substantive due process. Procedural due process in
dismissal cases consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the
employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first
notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2)
the second notice informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Before the issuance
of the second notice, the requirement of a hearing must be complied with by giving the worker an
opportunity to be heard. It is not necessary that an actual hearing be conducted. Substantive due
process, on the other hand, requires that dismissal by the employer be made under a just or authorized
cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code. In this case, there was no written notice furnished to
De Gracia, et al., regarding the cause of their dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written notice (telex)
to Skippers, the local manning agency, claiming that De Gracia, et al., were repatriated because the
latter voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts. This telex was given credibility and weight by the
Labor Arbiter and NLRC in deciding that there was pre-termination of the employment contract "akin
to resignation" and no illegal dismissal. However, as correctly ruled by the CA, the telex message is "a
biased and self-serving document that does not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence." If,
indeed, De Gracia, et al., voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts, then De Gracia, et al., should have
submitted their written resignations.
 SECOND DIVISION

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. and G.R. No. 175558

SKIPPERS MARITIME SERVICES,

INC., LTD., Present:

Petitioners, ,

BRION,

- versus - SERENO, and

NATHANIEL DOZA,

NAPOLEON DE GRACIA,

ISIDRO L. LATA, and

CHARLIE APROSTA, Promulgated:

Respondents. February 8, 2012

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION 

CARPIO, J.:

The Case 

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing the 5 July 2006 Decision1 and 7
November 2006 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88148.3

 
 

This arose from consolidated labor case4 filed by seafarers Napoleon

De Gracia (De Gracia), Isidro L. Lata (Lata), Charlie Aprosta (Aprosta), and
Nathaniel Doza (Doza) against local manning agency Skippers United Pacific, Inc.
and its foreign principal, Skippers Maritime Services, Inc., Ltd. (Skippers) for
unremitted home allotment for the month of December 1998, salaries for the
unexpired portion of their employment contracts, moral damages, exemplary
damages, and attorneys fees. Skippers, on the other hand, answered with a claim for
reimbursement of De Gracia, Aprosta and Latas repatriation expenses, as well as
award of moral damages and attorneys fees.

De Gracia, Lata, Aprosta and Dozas (De Gracia, et al.) claims were dismissed by

the Labor Arbiter for lack of merit.5 The Labor Arbiter also dismissed Skippers
claims.6De Gracia, et al. appealed7 the Labor Arbiters decision with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the First Division of the NLRC
dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.8 Doza, et al.s Motion for Reconsideration was
likewise denied by the NLRC,9 so they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals (CA).10

The CA granted the petition, reversed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decisions, and
awarded to De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta their unremitted home allotment,
three monthssalary each representing the unexpired portion of their employment
contracts and attorneys fees.11 No award was given to Doza for lack of factual
basis.12 The CA denied Skippers Motion for Partial Reconsideration.13 Hence, this
Petition.

The Facts

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. deployed, in behalf of Skippers, De Gracia, Lata,

and Aprosta to work on board the vessel MV Wisdom Star, under the following terms
and conditions:

Name: Napoleon O. De Gracia

Position: 3rd Engineer
Contract Duration: 10 months

Basic Monthly Salary: US$800.00

Contract Date: 17 July 199814

Name: Isidro L. Lata

Position: 4th Engineer

Contract Duration: 12 months

Basic Monthly Salary: US$600.00

Contract Date: 17 April 199815

Name: Charlie A. Aprosta

Position: Third Officer

Contract Duration: 12 months

Basic Monthly Salary: US$600.00

Contract Date: 17 April 199816

Paragraph 2 of all the employment contracts stated that: The terms and conditions of
the Revised Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Seafarers
approved per Department Order No. 33 and Memorandum Circular No. 55, both
series of 1996 shall be strictly and faithfully observed.17 No employment contract was
submitted for Nathaniel Doza.

De Gracia, et al. claimed that Skippers failed to remit their respective allotments for
almost five months, compelling them to air their grievances with the Romanian
Seafarers Free Union.18 On 16 December 1998, ITF Inspector Adrian Mihalcioiu of
the Romanian Seafarers Union sent Captain Savvas of Cosmos Shipping a fax letter,
relaying the complaints of his crew, namely: home allotment delay, unpaid salaries
(only advances), late provisions, lack of laundry services (only one washing machine),
and lack of maintenance of the vessel (perforated and unrepaired deck).19 To date,
however, Skippers only failed to remit the home allotment for the month of December
1998.20 On 28 January 1999, De Gracia, et al. were unceremoniously discharged from
MV Wisdom Stars and immediately repatriated.21 Upon arrival in the Philippines,
De Gracia, et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter on 4
April 1999 and prayed for payment of their home allotment for the month of
December 1998, salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts, moral damages,
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.22

Skippers, on the other hand, claims that at around 2:00 a.m. on 3 December 1998,
De Gracia, smelling strongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of Gabriel Oleszek, Master
of MV Wisdom Stars, and was rude, shouting noisily to the master.23 De Gracia left
the masters cabin after a few minutes and was heard shouting very loudly somewhere
down the corridors.24 This incident was evidenced by the Captains Report sent via
telex to Skippers on said date.25

Skippers also claims that at 12:00 noon on 22 January 1999, four Filipino seafarers,
namely Aprosta, De Gracia, Lata and Doza, arrived in the masters cabin and
demanded immediate repatriation because they were not satisfied with the
ship.26 De Gracia, et al. threatened that they may become crazy any moment and
demanded for all outstanding payments due to them.27 This is evidenced by a telex
of Cosmoship MV Wisdom to Skippers, which however bears conflicting dates of 22
January 1998 and 22 January 1999.28

Skippers also claims that, due to the disembarkation of De Gracia, et al., 17 other
seafarers disembarked under abnormal circumstsances.29 For this reason, it was
suggested that Polish seafarers be utilized instead of Filipino seamen.30 This is again
evidenced by a fax of Cosmoship MV Wisdom to Skippers, which bears conflicting
dates of 24 January 1998 and 24 January 1999.31

 
Skippers, in its Position Paper, admitted non-payment of home allotment for the
month of December 1998, but prayed for the offsetting of such amount with the
repatriation expenses in the following manner:32

Seafarer Repatriation Home Allotment Balance

Expense
De Gracia US$1,340.00 US$900.00 US$440.00
Aprosta US$1,340.00 US$600.00 US$740.00
Lata US$1,340.00 US$600.00 US$740.00

Since De Gracia, et al. pre-terminated their contracts, Skippers claims they are liable
for their repatriation expenses33 in accordance with Section 19(G) of Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 55, series
of 1996 which states:

G. A seaman who requests for early termination of his contract shall be liable
for his repatriation cost as well as the transportation cost of his replacement.
The employer may, in case of compassionate grounds, assume the
transportation cost of the seafarers replacement.

Skippers also prayed for payment of moral damages and attorneys fees.34

The Decision of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision on 18 February 2002, with its dispositive

portion declaring:

 
 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing herein action for lack
of merit. Respondents claim for reimbursement of the expenses they incurred in
the repatriation of complainant Nathaniel Doza is likewise dismissed.

SO ORDERED.35

The Labor Arbiter dismissed De Gracia, et al.s complaint for illegal dismissal because

the seafarers voluntarily pre-terminated their employment contracts by demanding for
immediate repatriation due to dissatisfaction with the ship.36 The Labor Arbiter held
that such voluntary pre-termination of employment contract is akin to resignation,37 a
form of termination by employee of his employment contract under Article 285 of
the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter gave weight and credibility to the telex of the
master of the vessel to Skippers, claiming that De Gracia, et al. demanded for
immediate repatriation.38 Due to the absence of illegal dismissal, De Gracia, et. al.s
claim for salaries representing the unexpired portion of their employment contracts
was dismissed.39

The Labor Arbiter also dismissed De Gracia et al.s claim for home allotment for
December 1998.40 The Labor Arbiter explained that payment for home allotment is in
the nature of extraordinary money where the burden of proof is shifted to the worker
who must prove he is entitled to such monetary benefit.41 Since De Gracia, et al. were
not able to prove their entitlement to home allotment, such claim was dismissed.42

Lastly, Skippers claim for reimbursement of repatriation expenses was likewise

denied, since Article 19(G) of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996
allows the employer, in case the seafarer voluntarily pre-terminates his contract, to
assume the repatriation cost of the seafarer on compassionate grounds.43

The Decision of the NLRC

  

The NLRC, on 28 October 2002, dismissed De Gracia, et al.s appeal for lack of merit
and affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision.44 The NLRC considered De Gracia, et al.s
claim for home allotment for December 1998 unsubstantiated, since home allotment is
a benefit which De Gracia, et al. must prove their entitlement to.45 The NLRC also
denied the claim for illegal dismissal because De Gracia, et al. were not able to refute
the telex received by Skippers from the vessels master that De Gracia, et al.
voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts and demanded immediate repatriation due to
their dissatisfaction with the ships operations.46

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

The CA, on 5 July 2006, granted De Gracia, et al.s petition and reversed the decisions
of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, its dispositive portion reading as follows:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolution

dated October 28, 2002 and the Order dated August 31, 2004 rendered by the
public respondent NLRC are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Let another
judgment be entered holding private respondents jointly and severally liable to
petitioners for the payment of:

1.      Unremitted home allotment pay for the month of December, 1998 or the
equivalent thereof in Philippine pesos:

a. De Gracia = US$900.00

b. Lata = US$600.00

c. Aprosta = US$600.00

2.      Salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for 3 months
for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, or the equivalent
thereof in Philippine pesos:
 a. De Gracia = US$2,400.00

b. Lata = US$1,800.00

c. Aprosta = US$1,800.00

3.      Attorneys fees and litigation expenses equivalent to 10% of the total claims.

SO ORDERED.47

The CA declared the Labor Arbiter and NLRC to have committed grave abuse of

discretion when they relied upon the telex message of the captain of the vessel stating
that De Gracia, et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts and demanded
immediate repatriation.48 The telex message was a self-serving document that does not
satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion that
petitioners indeed voluntarily demanded their immediate repatriation.49 For this
reason, the repatriation of De Gracia, et al. prior to the expiration of their contracts
showed they were illegally dismissed from employment.50

In addition, the failure to remit home allotment pay was effectively admitted by
Skippers, and prayed to be offset from the repatriation expenses.51 Since there is no
proof that De Gracia, et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts, the repatriation
expenses are for the account of Skippers, and cannot be offset with the home
allotment pay for December 1998.52

No relief was granted to Doza due to lack of factual basis to support his

petition.53 Attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total claims was granted since it
involved an action for recovery of wages or where the employee was forced to litigate
and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest.54

The Issues
 

Skippers, in its Petition for Review on Certiorari, assigned the following errors in the
CA Decision:

a) The Court of Appeals seriously erred in not giving due credence to the
masters telex message showing that the respondents voluntarily requested to be
repatriated.

b) The Court of Appeals seriously erred in finding petitioners liable to

pay backwages and the alleged unremitted home allotment pay despite the
finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the claims are baseless.

c) The Court of Appeals seriously erred in awarding attorneys fees in favor of

respondents despite its findings that the facts attending in this case do not
support the claim for moral and exemplary damages.55

The Ruling of this Court

We deny the petition and affirm the CA Decision, but modify the award.

For a workers dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both procedural
and substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes
procedural due process, while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes
substantive due process.56
 

Procedural due process in dismissal cases consists of the twin requirements of notice
and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before
the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises the
employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2)
the second notice informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him.
Before the issuance of the second notice, the requirement of a hearing must be
complied with by giving the worker an opportunity to be heard. It is not necessary that
an actual hearing be conducted.57

Substantive due process, on the other hand, requires that dismissal by the employer be
made under a just or authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code.

In this case, there was no written notice furnished to De Gracia, et al. regarding the
cause of their dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written notice (telex) to Skippers, the
local manning agency, claiming that De Gracia, et al. were repatriated because the
latter voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts. This telex was given credibility and
weight by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in deciding that there was pre-termination of
the employment contract akin to resignation and no illegal dismissal. However, as
correctly ruled by the CA, the telex message is a biased and self-serving document
that does not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence. If, indeed, De Gracia, et
al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts, then De Gracia, et al. should have
submitted their written resignations.

Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of the

employment contract by serving written notice on the employer at least one (1) month
in advance. Given that provision, the law contemplates the requirement of a written
notice of resignation. In the absence of a written resignation, it is safe to presume that
the employer terminated the seafarers. In addition, the telex message relied upon by
the Labor Arbiter and NLRC bore conflicting dates of 22 January 1998 and 22
January 1999, giving doubt to the veracity and authenticity of the document. In 22
January 1998, De Gracia, et al. were not even employed yet by the foreign principal.
For these reasons, the dismissal of De Gracia, et al. was illegal.
On the issue of home allotment pay, Skippers effectively admitted non-remittance of
home allotment pay for the month of December 1998 in its Position Paper. Skippers
sought the repatriation expenses to be offset with the home allotment pay. However,
since De Gracia, et al.s dismissal was illegal, their repatriation expenses were for the
account of Skippers and could not be offset with the home allotment pay.

Contrary to the claim of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that the home allotment pay is
in the nature of extraordinary money where the burden of proof is shifted to the
worker who must prove he is entitled to such monetary benefit, Section 8 of POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996, states that the allotment actually
constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of the seafarers salary:

The seafarer is required to make an allotment which is payable once a month to

his designated allottee in the Philippines through any authorized Philippine
bank. The master/employer/agency shall provide the seafarer with facilities to
do so at no expense to the seafarer. The allotment shall be at least eighty
percent (80%) of the seafarers monthly basic salary including backwages, if
any. (Emphasis supplied)

Paragraph 2 of the employment contracts of De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta incorporated

the provisions of above Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996, in the
employment contracts. Since said memorandum states that home allotment of
seafarers actually constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of their salary, home
allotment pay is not in the nature of an extraordinary money or benefit, but should
actually be considered as salary which should be paid for services rendered. For this
reason, such non-remittance of home allotment pay should be considered as unpaid
salaries, and Skippers shall be liable to pay the home allotment pay of De Gracia, et
al. for the month of December 1998.

Damages

 
As admitted by Skippers in its Position Paper, the home allotment pay for December
1998 due to De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta is:

Seafarer Home Allotment Pay

De Gracia US$900.00
Aprosta US$600.00
Lata US$600.00

The monthly salary of De Gracia, according to his employment contract, is only

US$800.00. However, since Skippers admitted in its Position Paper a higher home
allotment pay for De Gracia, we award the higher amount of home allotment pay for
De Gracia in the amount of US$900.00. Since the home allotment pay can be
considered as unpaid salaries, the peso equivalent of the dollar amount should be
computed using the prevailing rate at the time of termination since it was due and
demandable to De Gracia, et al. on 28 January 1999.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) provides for money
claims in cases of unjust termination of employment contracts:

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized

cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per
annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract
or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the unexpired portion of
the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less, shall be awarded to the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal
dismissal. However, in 24 March 2009, Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and
Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.,58 the Court, in an En Banc Decision, declared
unconstitutional the clause or for three months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less and awarded the entire unexpired portion of the employment
contract to the overseas Filipino worker.

On 8 March 2010, however, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 (RA 10022)
amended Section 10 of the Migrant Workers Act, and once again reiterated the
provision of awarding the unexpired portion of the employent contract or three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Nevertheless, since the termination occurred on January 1999 before the passage of
the amendatory RA 10022, we shall apply RA 8042, as unamended, without touching
on the constitutionality of Section 7 of RA 10022.

The declaration in March 2009 of the unconstitutionality of the clause or for three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less in RA 8042 shall be
given retroactive effect to the termination that occurred in January 1999 because an
unconstitutional clause in the law confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no
protection. The unconstitutional provision is inoperative, as if it was not passed into
law at all.59

As such, we compute the claims as follows:

Seafarer Contract Contract Repatriation Unexpired Monthly Total Claims

Term Date Date Term Salary
De Gracia 10 months 17 Jul. 28 Jan. 1999 3 months & US$800 US$2933.34
1998 20 days
Lata 12 months 17 Apr. 28 Jan. 1999 2 months & US$600 US$1600
1998 20 days
Aprosta 12 months 17 Apr. 28 Jan. 1999 2 months & US$600 US$1600
1998 20 days
 
Given the above computation, we modify the CAs imposition of award, and grant to
De Gracia, et al. salaries representing the unexpired portion of their contracts, instead
of salaries for three (3) months.

Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides for recovery of moral
damages in certain cases:

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and
35.

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in

No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
  

The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the
action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

Article 2229 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, provides for recovery of exemplary
damages:

Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example

or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.

In this case, we agree with the CA in not awarding moral and exemplary damages for
lack of factual basis.

Lastly, Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides for recovery of attorneys fees and
expenses of litigation:

Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of

litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate
with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the

plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to
satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
 (6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and

skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation and employers

liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys
fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

Article 111 of the Labor Code provides for a maximum award of attorneys fees in

cases of recovery of wages:

Art. 111. Attorneys fees.

a.       In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed
attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

b.      It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or
administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorneys fees which
exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

Since De Gracia, et al. had to secure the services of the lawyer to recover their unpaid
salaries and protect their interest, we agree with the CAs imposition of attorneys fees
in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total claims.
 

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 5 July

2006 with MODIFICATION. Petitioners Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Skippers
Maritime Services Inc., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable for payment of the
following:

1) Unremitted home allotment pay for the month of December 1998 in its equivalent
rate in Philippine Pesos at the time of termination on 28 January 1999:

a. De Gracia = US$900.00

b. Lata = US$600.00

c. Aprosta = US$600.00

2) Salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or its current
equivalent in Philippine Pesos:

a. De Gracia = US$2,933.34

b. Lata = US$1,600.00

c. Aprosta = US$1,600.00

3) Attorneys fees and litigation expenses equivalent to 10% of the total claims.

SO ORDERED.

 
 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

 
BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice
 

 
1Rollo, pp. 31-40. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Supreme Court Justice)
with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid concurring.

2 Id. at 41. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Supreme Court Justice) with Associate
Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid concurring.

3 Id. at 11-29.

4 CA rollo, p. 77.

5 Id. at 81.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 82-95.

8 Id. at 126-131.

9 Id. at 132-134.

10 Id. at 1-24.

11 Rollo, pp. 31-40.

12 Id. at 38.

13 Id. at 41.

14 CA rollo, p. 60.

15 Id. at 61.

16 Id. at 62.
17 Id. at 60-62.

18 Id. at 50.

19 Id. at 63.

20 Id. at 48.

21 Id. at 50.

22 Id. at 57.

23 Id. at 65.

24 Id.

25 Id. at 73.

26 Id. at 65.

27 Id. at 74.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 75.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id. at 68.

33 Id.

34 Id. at 70.

35 Id. at 81.

36 Id. at 80.

37 Id. at 79.

38 Id. at 80.

39 Id. at 81.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 80.
42 Id. at 80-81.

43 Id. at 81.

44 Id. at 131.

45 Id. at 130.

46 Id.

47 Rollo, pp. 39-40.

48 Id. at 36.

49 Id.

50 Id. at 37.

51 Id. at 38.

52 Id.

53 Id.

54 Id. at 39.

55 Id. at 19.

56 Quirico Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies and/or Marlito Uy, G.R. No. 191008, 11 April 2011,

citing Tirazona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169712, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 560.

57New Puerto Commercial v. Lopez, G.R. No. 169999, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 422, citing Solid
Development Corporation Workers Association (SDCWA-UWP) v. Solid Development Corporation, G.R.
No. 165995, 14 August 2007, 530 SCRA 132, 140-141.

58 G.R. No. 167614, 24 March 2009, 582 SCRA 254.

59 Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 179532, 30 May 2011.