FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 238147, September 29, 2021
ROGELIO H. JALIT, SR. Petitioner, v. CARGO SAFEWAY INC., KAMIUMA KISEN COMPANY LIMITED, AND SHINME KISENSANGYO COMPANY LIMITED Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated November 24, 2017 and Resolution2 dated March 8, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. SP No. 135137. The CA Decision and Resolution dismissed the petition for certiorari3 under Rule 65 filed by petitioner Rogelio H. Jalit, Sr. (Jalit) and affirmed the Decision4 dated March 14, 2013, and the Resolution5 dated February 26, 2014, both rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Decision6 dated October 22, 2012 rendered by the Labor Arbiter (LA). In the aforesaid Decision, the LA dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, and attorney's fees filed by Jalit for lack of merit, but ordered respondents Cargo Safeway Inc. (Cargo Safeway), Kamiuma Kisen Company Limited (Kamiuma) and Shinme Kisensangyo Company Limited (Shinme) (collectively, respondents), and Reynaldo D. Casareo to pay nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 for violating petitioner's right to due process in his dismissal from respondent Cargo Safeway.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
Cargo Safeway is a manning agency organized and existing under Philippine laws while Kamiuma and Shinme are its accredited foreign principals.7
On November 8, 2011, Jalit was hired by Cargo Safeway through a Contract of Employment whereby he will serve as Master of the vessel M/V Nord Setouchi for nine months, guaranteed with a basic salary of US$1,781.00, overtime pay of US$1,325.00 per month, leave pay of US$534.00 per week plus subsidy allowance of US$54.00/month.8 Prior to the foregoing contract, Jalit was similarly engaged by Cargo Safeway as Master for M/V Atlantic Diana from May 11, 2009 to April 7, 2010, and September 26, 2010 to July 28, 2011.9
On January 11, 2012, Jalit was deployed at sea on board M/V Nord Setouchi. Then, on May 14, 2012, Jalit was notified by Cargo Safeway that he was among those crew members to be replaced and was ordered to disembark from the ship on May 18, 2012.10 Thus, on the same day, Jalit called Shinme's office in Japan to ask for an explanation. In response, he received an e-mail from a certain Mr. Tanimizu of Shinme, who explained that his dismissal was due to a communication problem with the charterer, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Good day capt,In another e-mail dated May 14, 2012, Mr. Arikawa of Shinme further elaborated the reason behind Jalit's dismissal as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Thanks for your kind cooperation and performing the safety navigation under your command on board.
We regret to inform you that we have received serious complain from the charterer via ship owner about the communication between ship and them. so, ship owner worry that happen another problem with chartere again. also their visiting in Denmark. Therefore, we will make your vacation together with other crew in Denmark.
We hope to your kind cooperation and understanding on this matter.
We will make next schedule in other ship asap.
Thanks and Best regards,
T. Tanimizu/Crew dept.11chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Good day Captain,Jalit was thus immediately dismissed as Master of M/V Nord Setouchi by the respondents, due to his delayed response to the charterer's request for information regarding the vessel via e-mail on April 3, 2012.
Regarding your disembarkation at Aarhus, it is D/S Norden's request in mainly.
Main reason is that response about below inquiry dated Apr/3 is too late. So D/S Norden can not decide next employment.
They take this facts heavily.
QTE
Pls find attached copy of last message sent to Master, to which we have still not received a reply.
In addition to this, Chrts have also inquired about the height from deck to the top of stanchions.
Thanks in advance your urgent reply.
Best Regards
Camilla Engedal
Handysize Chartering
UNQTE
- PLS ADVISE HEIGHT FROM WATER LEVEL TO THE TOP OF STANCHIONS POSTS ON EACH HOLD UNDER FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. LIGHT BALLAST
2. HEAVY BALLAST
3. HEAVY BALLAST+ HOLD NO 5 LOADED WITH ABT 4800
MT OF UREA SF ABT 51
- PLS ADVISE WATERLINE TO TOP OF THE HATCH TOP IN FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. IN LADEN
2. LIGHT BALLAST
3. HEAVY BALLAST. CONDITION
- THE HEIGHT FROM DECK TO TOP OF STANCHIONS
UNQUOTE
Certainly we noted your situation that you are attending authority in arrival at Brindisi.
But Norden and Owner did not understand your situation.
And it is possible to attend or inspection from D/S Norden because of Aarhus in Denmark is D/S Norden's own country.
So Owner also requests your disembarkation take into account Norden's impression.
In additional, in exchange of the email with us, your response is sometimes to express doubt.
Then we are sustained various pressure from Norden and Owner. Therefore we have no other choice decision of your disembarkation. We must apologize for not keep your situation and pride.
So I think you mind is very tired and you need refresh time at home town with your family and necessary to change your mind.
If you have good vacation, you will become more good commander as great captain.
Sorry again to cause such result by our inadequency.
Thanks and Best Regards
K. Arikawa
Shinme Kisensangyo Co., Ltd.12chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This Court affirms the NLRC in holding that [Jalit] was not only dismissed on the basis of his failure to respond to the technical queries of the charterer regarding measurements/computations for the vessel cranes, but also due to the resulting damage caused by his delay, if not failure to respond. It was found that due to the delayed information, private respondents failed to sub-charter the vessel, which resulted in loss of income for the shipowner. Thus, there was some basis for the loss of confidence reposed on the petitioner considering that the incident gave room to doubt his competence and knowledge as commander of the vessel.Thereafter, Jalit filed his Motion for Reconsideration,35 dated December 21, 2017, which was subsequently denied in the Resolution36 dated March 8, 2018.
This Court also affirms the award of nominal damages in the amount of [P]30,000.00 in favor of [Jalit]. It is settled that although an employer may legally dismiss an employee for a just cause, the non-observance of the requirements of due process before effecting the dismissal leaves the employer liable for nominal damages.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.34 (Emphasis in the original)
This Court is also cognizant of the rule that factual findings of labor administrative officials that are supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and finality, absent a showing that they arbitrarily disregarded or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.40 Further, the findings of the lower tribunals such as the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are no longer to be disturbed, and are even accorded finality, unless the case falls under any of the exceptions that would necessitate this Court's review.41
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures x x x; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible x x x; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion x x x; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts x x x; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting x x x; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee x x x; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court x x x; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based x x x; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents x x x; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record x x x39 (Emphasis omitted)
Article 297. Termination by Employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:To properly invoke the fraud or willful breach of trust as a just cause for termination, two conditions should concur, namely, (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.47
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the l awful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
The captain of a vessel is a confidential and managerial employee within the meaning of the above doctrine. A master or captain, for purposes of maritime commerce, is one who has command of a vessel. A captain commonly performs three (3) distinct roles: (1) he is a general agent of the shipowner; (2) he is also commander and technical director of the vessel; and (3) he is a representative of the country under whose flag he navigates. Of these roles, by far the most important is the role performed by the captain as commander of the vessel; for such role (which, to our mind, is analogous to that of "Chief Executive Officer" [CEO] of a present-day corporate enterprise) has to do with the operation and preservation of the vessel during its voyage and the protection of the passengers (if any) and crew and cargo. In his role as general agent of the shipowner, the captain has authority to sign bills of lading, carry goods aboard and deal with the freight earned, agree upon rates and decide whether to take cargo. The ship captain, as agent of the shipowner, has legal authority to enter into contracts with respect to the vessel and the trading of the vessel, subject to applicable limitations established by statute, contract or instructions and regulations of the shipowner. To the captain is committed the governance, care and management of the vessel. Clearly, the captain is vested with both management and fiduciary functions.50 (Citations omitted)Thus, there is no question that as the Master or Captain of the vessel M/V Nord Setouchi, Jalit was a managerial employee of respondents, occupying a position of trust and confidence.
x x x the language of Article 282(c) [now, Article 296 (c)] of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.53 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)In the case of Fujitsu Computer Products Corp. of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals,54 this Court warned against upholding a dismissal grounded on speculative inferences of loss of trust and confidence owing to the subjective nature of the matter. Instead, the same must be based on clearly established facts, thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x in termination cases, the employer bears the onus of proving that the dismissal was for just cause. Indeed, a condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicions spawned by speculative inferences. Because of its subjective nature, this Court has been very scrutinizing in cases of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence because the same can easily be concocted by an abusive employer. Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence theorized upon is not borne by clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be allowed. Moreover, the fact that one is a managerial employee does not by itself exclude him from the protection of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.55 (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)Considering that the fact of Jalit's dismissal is undisputed, the burden of proof is on the employer to clearly establish facts that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.56 To declare Jalit's dismissal as legal, respondents must demonstrate by substantial evidence that he committed willful breach of trust resulting in the alleged loss of trust and confidence in him, which unfortunately, this Court finds wanting.
From these e-mails, it can be surmised that Jalit took at least two actions from the time the charterer sent its enquiry on April 3, 2012 at 2:19 pm: (1) Jalit sent an e-mail to Shinme to seek help with his calculations on April 3, 2012 at 9:21 p.m.;72 and (2) Jalit provided the charterer his calculation in an e-mail dated April 4, 2012, sent at 3:41 p.m.73
- E-mail dated April 3, 2012, 14:19 from Norden to Nord Setouchi (Jalit)64
Good day again,
Clarification received from Cluts to the diagram:
'Vessel cranes must guarantee aerial draft of20.3 meters, as shown in the enclosed diagram'
Pls confirm.
Best Regards- E-mail dated April 3, 2012, 15:09 from Norden to Jalit65
Good day Captain,
Pls be advised that we are currently looking at your next employment - in this respect, could we pls ask you to confirm that you vsl can comply with the restrictions as per the attached diagram.
Appreciate your soonest response.
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards
Camilla Engedal
Handysize Chattering- E-mail dated April 3, 2012, 21:21 from Jalit to Shinme66
dear sir,
good day, pls below msg is fm charterer norden, he ask me to confirm about vessel crane must guarantee aerial draft 20.3 mtrs as shown in the diagram attached below. for possible next employment.
in my calculation please help me.
as per shown is the diagram are "¥:
A= IS 0.30 CM
B = IS 7.30 MTRS
C = IS 7.90 MTRS
D = IS 4.80 MTRS DECK LINE AND HIGH & LOW WATER
-----------------------
TOTAL 20.30 MTRS
SAMPLE ON LETTER 'D'
DEPTH MOULDED = 13.60M
MINUS = 9.80M MAX SUMMER DRAFT
-----------------------
WATER DECK LINE 3.80M
HIGH/LOW TIDE 1.00M
-----------------------
TOTAL 4.80M
NOTE: CHARTERER CALL US IN TELEPHONE TO CONFIRM THE CRANE AERIAL DRAFT DIAGRAM AS PER ATTACHED, SO PLEASE HELP ME IF MY CALCULATION IS OK.
x x x- E-mail dated April 4, 2012, 7:44, from Shinme to Jalit67
Good day Captain
Sorry for the late reply to your query about aerial draft.
Attached such guidance received from Imabari shipyard for your information.
Air draft (Water line to Hook) No. 4 crane is 18.39m and No. 3 is 19.94m so Charierers will understand if you provided these figures along with attachment, i think.
as you know well, other factor is depending on the position of the Hopper on the quay (i.e. outreach of ship's crane) and also high and low water level of quay.
Hoping for your understanding to the above.
Best regards
y. koyama- E-mail dated April 4, 2012, 15:41, from Jalit to Norden68
PLS FIND BELOW MY NEW CALCULATION.. VERY SORRY FOR INCONVENIENT VESSEL ARRIVED ATTENDING AUTHORITY
TKS/BRGDS
MASTER
- PLS ADVISE HEIGHT FROM WATER LEVEL TO THE TOP OF STANCHIONS POSTS ON EACH HOLD UNDER FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. LIGHT BALLAST DRAFT F:4.18/M: 4.87/A: 5.55
1. 17.42m
2. 17.08
3. 16.73
4. 16.39
5. 16.05
2. HEAVY BALLAST WITH NOLD No. 3 BALLAST:DRAFT F:7.21/M: 7.11/A: 7.01
1) 14.40
2) 14.35
3) 14.50
4) 14.54
5) 15.58
3. HEAVY BALLAST + HOLD NO 5 LOADED WITH ABT 4800 MT OF UREA SF ABT 51
1) 15.84
2) 14.54
3) 13.24
4) 11.94
5) 10.64
- PLS ADVISE WATERLINE TO TOP OF THE HATCH TOP IN FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. IN LADEN
1 - 5) 5.25 EVEN KEEL MAXIMUM DRAFT OF 9.80m
2. LIGHT BALLAST DRAFT F:4.18/M: 4.87/A: 5.55
1) 10.87
2) 10.52
3) 10.18
4) 9.84
5) 9.50
3. HEAVY BALLAST CONDITION WITH NOLD NO. 3 BALLAST:DRAFT F:7.21/M: 7.11/A: 7.02
1) 7.84
2) 7.89
3) 7.94
4) 7.99
5) 8.03
x x x- E-mail dated April 4, 2012, 16:26, from Norden to Jalit69
Good day Captain,
Thanks for your below revised info, however please be advised that Charterers have just failed the vessel on subs as info was received too late.
Hence, your vessel currently remains uncommitted upon completion of current voyage.
Best Regards
Camilla Engedal
Handysize Chartering
x x x- E-mail dated April 4, 2012, 21:16, from Norden to Shinme70
(Japanese characters)
Pls find attached copy of last message sent to Master, to which we have still not received a reply. In addition to this, Chrts have also enquired about the height from deck to top of stanchions.
Thanks in advance your urgent reply.
Best Regards
Camilla Engedal
Handysize Chartering
(Japanese characters)
- PLS ADVISE HEIGHT FROM WATER LEVEL TO THE TOP OF STANCHIONS POSTS ON EACH HOLD UNDER FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. LIGHT BALLAST
2. HEAVY BALLAST
3. HEAVY BALLAST + HOLD NO 5 LOADED WITH ABT 4800 MT OF UREA SF ABT 51
- PLS ADVISE WATERLINE TO TOP OF THE HATCH TOP IN FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. IN LADEN
2. LIGHT BALLAST
3. HEAVY BALLAST. CONDITION
- THE HEIGHT FROM DECK TO TOP OF STANCHIONS
(Japanese characters)- E-mail dated April 4, 2012, 22:26, from Norden to Shinme71
(Japanese characters)
THE HEIGHT FROM DECK TO TOP OF STANCHIONS
THE HEIGHT FROM DECK TO TOP OF THE HATCH TOP
(Japanese characters)"
The Court had the occasion to reiterate in Nokom v. National Labor Relations Commission the guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence -This Court has also ruled in Ranises v. NLRC:92chanrobleslawlibraryx x x
- loss of confidence should not be simulated;
- it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified;
- it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and
- it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.
The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay-off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of the said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position, but his very livelihood. The Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by the employee; nevertheless, it urges a moderation of the sanction that may be applied to him. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not be visited with a consequence so severe as dismissal from employment. Indeed, the consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for justifiable cause.91 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
While it is true that loss of trust or breach of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee, such loss or breach of trust must have some basis. Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. Thus, there must be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee and the same must be supported by substantial evidence. Consequent therefore to respondent employer's failure to discharge the burden of substantiating its charges of breach of trust against petitioner, there is no just cause for the latter's dismissal. Hence, his termination from employment is illegal.93 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)Given the evidence presented by both parties, this Court deems respondents to have failed in discharging the burden of proving by substantial evidence, loss of confidence due to fraud or willful breach of trust committed by Jalit. He was therefore illegally dismissed from service by respondents.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Maria Elisa Sempio-Diy concurring; rollo, pp. 37-48.
2Id. at 49-50.
3Id. at 51-69.
4 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida, with Commissioners Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap concurring; id. at 76-86.
5 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan, with Commissioners Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap concurring; id. at 87-93.
6 Penned by Labor Arbiter Julia Cecily Coching Sosito; id. at 94-100.
7 As culled from the CA Decision dated November 24, 2017; id. at 37 and the Petition dated May 9, 2018; id. at 12-13.
8Id. at 14-15; 37.
9Id. at 14-15.
10Id. at 15-16; 37.
11Id. at 126; 167.
12Id. at 127-128; 166.
13Id. at 19.
14Id. at 13; 37.
15 As culled from the Petition dated May 9, 2018; id. at 17-18.
16 As culled from the Comment dated October 2, 2018; id. at 246.
17Id. at 247.
18Id. at 247-248.
19Id. at 94-100.
20Id.
21Id.
22Id.
23Id.
24Id. at 76-86.
25Id. at 83-84.
26Id.
27Id. at 85.
28Id. at 216-221.
29Id. at 87-93.
30Id. at 91.
31Id. at 37-48.
32Id. at 46.
33Id. at 47.
34Id. at 47-48.
35Id. at 70-75.
36Id. at 49-50.
37Fuji Television Network Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388, 416 (2014), citing Meralco Industrial Engineering Services Corp v. National Labor Relations Commission, 572 Phil. 94, 117 (2008).
38 824 Phil. 35 (2018).
39Id. at 40-41.
40"J" Marketing Corp. v. Taran, 607 Phil. 414, 424 (2009).
41Raza v. Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc., 765 Phil. 61, 76 (2015).
42Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016).
43Rollo, p. 21.
44Id. at 23.
45Id. at 27-28.
46 As renumbered by DOLE Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015 (formerly Article 282).
47SM Development Corp., Joann Hizon, Atty. Mena Ojeda Jr., and Rosaline Qua v. Teodore Gilbert Ang, G.R. No. 220434, July 22, 2019.
48Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, 705 Phil. 210, 217 (2013).
49 305 Phil. 286 (1994).
50Id. at 296-297.
51Supra note 48, at 218.
52 663 Phil. 121 (2011).
53Id. at 128.
54 494 Phil. 697 (2005).
55Id. at 723.
56Id.
57Rollo, pp. 166-173; 194-201.
58 As culled from the Comment dated October 2, 2018; id. at 247.
59Id. at 247; and Respondents' Position Paper dated September 17, 2012; id. at 157.
60Id. at 247.
61Rollo, pp. 200-201.
62Id. at 166-167; 194-199.
63 As culled from the Comment dated October 2, 2018; id. at 246.
64Id. at 197.
65Id. at 196.
66Id. at 197.
67Id. at 215.
68Id. at 194-195.
69Id. at 194.
70Id. at 183-184; 198.
71Id.
72Id. at 197.
73Id. at 194-1 95.
74Id. at 194.
75Id. at 183-184, 198.
76Id. at 126-128, 166-167.
77Id. at 194-195.
78Id. at 194.
79Id. at 198.
80Id. at 246.
81 As culled from the Comment dated October 2, 2018; id.
82Id.
83Id.
84Id. at 258.
85Id. at 129-131.
86Id. at 127-128.
87Id. at 17-18; 215.
88Id. at 127.
89 See Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies, supra note 52, at 128.
90 Supra note 54.
91Id. at 718-728.
92 330 Phil. 936 (1996).
93Id. at 946.
94 G.R. No. 230831, September 05, 2018.
95Id.
96Id.
97 See E. Ganzon Inc. v. Ando, 806 Phil. 58, 65 (2017).
98Rollo, p. 81.
99Id. at 80-81.
100Distribution & Control Products, Inc./Tiamsic v. Santos, 813 Phil. 423, 433 (2017).
101Rollo, p. 85.
102 As renumbered by DOLE Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015 (formerly Article 279).
103Sanoh Fulton Phils., Inc. v. Bernardo, 716 Phil. 318, 391 (2013).
104 706 Phil. 339, 350 (2013).
105 371 Phil. 827, 839 (1999).
106Supra note 103, at 351.
107 As culled from the OFW Information; id. at 115; Contract of Employment; rollo p. 116; and Seafarer's Employment Contract; id. at 117.
108Id. at 15; 120.
109Leo's Restaurant & Bar Cafe v. Densing, 797 Phil. 743, 761 (2016).
110 820 Phil. 677 (2017).
111Id. at 689.
112 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013), as cited in Monsanto Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G. R. No. 230609-10, August 27, 2020.cralawredlibrary