VIRGILIO E. HALILI, PETITIONER, V. CREAMSHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., VROON OFFSHORE SERVICES, PTE., LTD. ANTONIO PUA, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
BRUSELAS, JR. J.:
(a) Decision,[2] the dispositive of which, reads –
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 27 April 2012 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
1) Respondents Cream Ship Management, Inc., Antonio Pua/Vroon Offshore Services PTE Ltd. are hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay complainant:
a) the amount of US$837.84 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment, representing the unexpired portion of his employment contract;
and
b) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10) of the judgment award.
2) The award of moral and exemplary damages is hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.”
and-
(b) Resolution[3] which denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the assailed Decision.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Halili filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against respondents Creamship Management Inc., Antonio Pua and its foreign principal Vroon Offshore Services PTE., LTD. Halili alleged that he was hired by respondents Creamship Management, Inc. and Vroon Offshore Services Pte. Ltd to work as an Able Seaman on 17 June 2010 under a five-month contract,[4] signed by respondent Antonio Pua, with a basic monthly salary of $613.00. According to him, he was fooled by the respondents into thinking that he will be attending a training in Bangkok on 19 November 2010. When he arrived in Bangkok, he was, however, informed that the training was postponed and he was asked to proceed to Manila. Halili objected because his contract was still unfinished but he was told that his position had been taken by a replacement crew. On 20 November 2010, he arrived in Manila and reported to the office of the respondents whereat he was told to renew his working papers. After having renewed his papers, he reported again to respondents’ office but he was told that he may not be allowed to board another vessel of the respondents because his son filed a case against the respondents before the NLRC. He explained that he had nothing to do with his son’s case and pleaded that he be allowed to board another vessel but to no avail. As a consequence, he and his family suffered anguish. He was also compelled to secure the services of counsel to protect his interest.
Halili contended that the respondents had already known that the alleged training course in Singapore had been completed, not postponed, when they bought his tickets[5] at noon of 18 November 2010. Thus, there was patent bad faith and malicious machinations on the part of the respondents when they tricked him to go to Bangkok, Thailand for the alleged training there, without informing him in advance that it was supposed to be held in Singapore on 16-18 November 2010. The respondents had acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, malevolent manner at his expense.
On the part of the respondents, they alleged that on 30 July 2010, Halili departed Manila bound for Singapore to join his assigned vessel. When Halili’s employment contract was about to expire on or about November 2010 (the 4th month of his contractual period), he signed off from the vessel to attend an upgrading and training course in Singapore. Unfortunately, the upgrading and training course did not materialize and was discontinued thru no fault of the respondents. Halili was therefore advised to return to Manila as he can no longer go back to the vessel. He was repatriated and arrived in Manila on 19 November 2010. Upon his arrival in Manila, he reported to the office of the the respondents. Given the prevailing circumstances, the respondents requested Halili for his working documents (Passport/Seaman’s Book and other Certificates) so that he can be re-hired when an opportunity for another engagement for the position of AB may arise. Halili, however, opted to hold on to his working documents, which was an indication, to the mind of the respondents, that he would rather seek another employment elsewhere. Thereafter, Halili never bothered the respondents except for some occasional visits, where Halili expressed that he was still available for another engagement. The respondents argued that it was Halili who signed off the vessel to take up upgrading and training courses in Singapore and when it did not materialize thru no fault of the respondents, they cannot be made to account for its consequences. Halili can not claim illegal dismissal when it had become impossible for him to go back to his former position on board the vessel because another one has taken his place on board. They further argued that there existed not only physical but also legal impossibility for them to comply with their obligation to complete the contractual period of Halili under his POEA Contract.
On 27 April 2012, the labor arbiter rendered a decision[6] finding that Halili was constructively and illegally dismissed. According to the labor arbiter, the evidence revealed that the training program for “Confine Space Training” was to have been conducted on 16-18 November 2010, and yet Halili was informed only on 18 November 2010 that the training will be held on 19 November 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand. The respondents also secured tickets for Halili on 18 November 2010, one for the trip from Hat Yai to Bangkok, and the second was for the trip from Bangkok to Manila. Upon arrival in Bangkok, the agent of the respondents, however, told Halili that the training was postponed so he had to proceed to Manila. Thus, patent was the fact that the training was not postponed as it was finished on 18 November 2010. Halili asserted that the motive for such early repatriation was the complaint filed by his son against the respondents. The respondents admitted in their Reply that Halili’s son filed a claim for total and permanent disability but it was not given a favorable treatment. From the foregoing, the labor arbiter found that it was pristinely clear that after Halili was told that his supposed training in Bangkok, Thailand was postponed, he was immediately sent home. He was not afforded the opportunity to know the reason why it was postponed, neither was he informed of any reasons before he was repatriated which was tantamount to constructive and illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter awarded moral damages as the respondents acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, malevolent manner. Exemplary damages were also awarded to Halili as the act of the respondents was found to be oppressive to labor and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. Finally, the labor arbiter, awarded attorney’s fees to Halili for having secured the services of counsel to protect his rights and interests.
The respondents appealed the foregoing decision of the labor arbiter to the NLRC.
On 23 July 2013, the NLRC promulgated the assailed Decision which affirmed with modification the decision of the labor arbiter. The NLRC concurred with the labor arbiter in finding that Halili was illegally dismissed. According to the NLRC, the alleged training of Halili on 16-18 November 2010 which admittedly did not materialize, was not sufficient ground to terminate or cut short the five-month employment contract of Halili. There was no showing that there was an agreement in Halili’s employment contract that the duration thereof can be cutoff or pre-terminated by reason of a training program. The NLRC, however, did not concur with the computation of the labor arbiter of Halili’s salary for the unexpired portion of his contract and with the award of moral and exemplary damages. According to the NLRC, Halili failed to prove with substantial evidence his entitlement to the said damages. Finally, the NLRC affirmed the award of attorney’s fees.
Halili’s motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, raising the following issues –
“I. WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOMINAL DAMAGE OF P30,000 PER AGABON CASE FOR HAVING BEEN ILLEGALLY DISMISSED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND
II. WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO THE DELETED MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.”
Halili asserts that he had claimed nominal damages from the very start in all his pleadings, such as in his sworn complaint, position paper, reply, rejoinder, appeal memorandum and motion for reconsideration. The labor arbiter and the NLRC, however, abused their discretion when they did not even touch the issue on nominal damages. According to Halili, he should be entitled to nominal damages as he was illegally dismissed without due process.
Halili also contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that he failed to prove with substantial evidence his entitlement to moral and exemplary damages. He insists that it was patent from the e-tickets that the respondents were fooling him from the start. The respondents had secured the said e-tickets on 18 November 2010 at 12:12p.m. for his flight on 19 November 2010, despite the fact that the evidence showed that the training program that he was told to attend was scheduled on 16-18 November 2010. Halili also alleged that the training was not postponed as it was finished on 18 November 2010. Halili asserts that the reason for his early repatriation was the complaint filed by his son against the respondents. The respondents admitted in their Reply that his son filed a claim for total and permanent disability but it was not given a favorable treatment by the company. Clearly such act of the respondents was oppressive to labor and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
We find the petition to be meritorious.
Moral damages may be recovered where the dismissal of the employee was tainted by bad faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, while exemplary damages are recoverable only if the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[7]
Based on the evidence presented, it clearly appears that the respondents knew as early as 26 October 2010, that Halili was scheduled to attend the “Confine Space Training” on 16-18 November 2010 in Singapore,[8] yet it was only on 18 November 2010 that they informed Halili of the said training and they even misinformed him that it was to be held on 19 November 2010. A perusal of the e-tickets purchased by the respondents for Halili shows that they were purchased only on 18 November 2010 and that Halili’s destinations only included Bangkok, Thailand and Manila. If we are to believe the respondents’ claim that Halili had signed off the vessel to attend training courses in Singapore which was scheduled on 16-18 November 2010, then why did they purchase the e-tickets for Halili only on 18 November 2010, which was supposed to be the last day of the training in Singapore and instead of being bound for Singapore, Halili was booked for a flight to Bangkok and then from Bangkok to Manila. Evidently, contrary to respondents’ claim, Halili did not sign off the vessel on his own volition to attend training courses in Singapore. When Halili arrived in Bangkok, Thailand on 19 November 2010, they made it appear that the training had been postponed, when in fact, even if the training had not been allegedly postponed, it would have ended at the time Halili arrived in Bangkok. Thus, there being no training to be held, Halili was left with no option but to go back to Manila. Clearly, the respondents acted in bad faith and in an oppressive manner when they caused the repatriation of Halili and cut short his five-month employment contract.
Anent the contention of Halili that the labor arbiter and the NLRC abused their discretion when they did not even touch on the issue of nominal damages, it may not be said that said tribunals ignored the said issue since the same was never raised in Halili’s position paper, reply, rejoinder, filed before the labor arbiter and that it was only in his motion for reconsideration filed before the NLRC, as claimed by the respondents, that he raised for the first time his claim for nominal damages. Nonetheless, the award of nominal damages is improper as Halili had already been granted compensatory damages and the Court likewise found him entitled to moral and exemplary damages. The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or recognize a right that has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereof; and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. An award of compensatory damages is a vindication of a right. It is in itself a recognition that plaintiff’s right was violated, hence, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper.[9]
From the foregoing, we hold that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that Halili failed to substantiate his claim for moral and exemplary damages, when it merely relied on the allegation of the respondents that the training program was postponed and thus Halili had to be repatriated as his position had already been occupied by the replacement crew. The NLRC did not consider the fact that as early as 26 October 2010, the respondents knew that Halili was scheduled to attend the “Confine Space Training” on 16-18 November 2010 in Singapore; that the tickets purchased by the respondents for Halili on 18 November 2010 were not intended for his training in Singapore as the supposed training was to be held on 16-18 November 2010; and that it was immaterial whether or not the training was postponed as the respondents had sent Halili to Bangkok on 19 November 2010, when the supposed training was scheduled to end. In other words, the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction when it disregarded other, material pieces of evidence without ample reason in reversing the factual findings of the labor arbiter.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the NLRC is VACATED except only with respect to the recomputed award of the remaining balance of the unexpired portion of the contract (US$837.84 instead of US$3,065.00) which we find to be in keeping with the evidence.
The decision of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated save for the computed award of US$3,065.00 which should be US$837.74 as correctly found by the NLRC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando (Chairperson) and Barrios,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Actg. Third Member vice J. Gaerlan per Office Order No. 270-14-RSF dated 06 June 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] Written by Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 06-000578-12, entitled “Virgilio E. Halili vs. Creamship Management, Inc., et al.;” Rollo, pp. 21-28.
[3] Rollo, pp. 29-30
[4] Rollo, p. 54.
[5] Rollo, p. 73.
[6] Rollo, pp. 31-41.
[7] Park Hotel, et al. vs. Manolo Soriano et. al., G.R. No. 171118, 10 September 2012, 680 SCRA 328.
[8] Rollo, p. 102.
[9] Aquino,Timoteo, Torts and Damages, Second Edition (2005), citing Armovit vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88561, 20 April 1990,184 SCRA 476 and Vda. De Medina vs. Cresencia,G.R. No. L-8194, July 11, 1956, 99 SCRA 506.