Alenaje vs. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc.

A seafarer who voluntarily resigns cannot successfully claim constructive dismissal absent clear, positive, and convincing evidence that continued employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely by the employer’s acts. An order to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor, given for safety and maintenance purposes, falls within the lawful commands that a seafarer must obey under the POEA Standard Contract; a seafarer’s bare, self-serving allegations of harassment, contradicted by contemporaneous documents such as a debriefing report stating “resign” as the reason for sign-off, will not suffice.

Rommel S. Alenaje had worked as a seaman for 18 years. On April 13, 2015, he entered into a six-month contract as a steward on board the container vessel M/V CPO New York, with a basic monthly salary of US$644.00, through the local manning agency C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. and its foreign principal Reederei Claus-Peter Offen (GmbH & Co.) KG. He boarded the vessel on April 14, 2015. Three days later, Chief Mate Lukasz Leszek Kucharz ordered him to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Alenaje resisted the order, asserting the task was not part of his steward duties and that he needed the morning hours to prepare and serve food to officers, crew, and repair personnel. The Chief Mate accused him of insubordination and allegedly threatened to have him dismissed. A shipboard hearing ensued, and a formal warning was recorded in the vessel’s logbook. Claiming an unbearable working atmosphere and fear for his safety, Alenaje resigned on April 21, 2015. His resignation was accepted the same day, and he was repatriated after more than a month on board. Upon return to the Philippines, he filled out a Debriefing Report indicating “resign” as the reason for sign-off and made no negative remarks. Respondents later filed a disciplinary complaint for insubordination with the POEA; Alenaje subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims.

• Nature: Petitioner, a seafarer with 18 years’ experience, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for the unexpired portion of his contract, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. He alleged that he was constructively dismissed when continued employment became unbearable due to an unlawful order and harassment.

• Petitioner’s version: He boarded M/V CPO New York on April 14, 2015 as the sole steward, also acting as messman for the crew, working from early morning until 1:00 a.m. On April 17, 2015, Chief Mate Kucharz ordered him to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Petitioner considered this task beyond his duties as a steward and politely asked to perform it in the afternoon because he needed to prepare and serve meals by 11:00 a.m. The Chief Mate accused him of insubordination and threatened to secure his dismissal. A Show Cause Notice was issued the next day. After a hearing, petitioner received a Notice of Formal Warning. Despite the warning, the Chief Mate repeatedly told him he would be dismissed. Petitioner felt harassed, singled out, and genuinely feared for his safety, prompting him to resign on April 21, 2015. He was later issued a Notice of Dismissal dated May 20, 2015, and was repatriated after receiving only one month and eight days’ salary.

• Respondents’ version: Petitioner flatly refused a lawful order from the Captain, relayed through Chief Mate Kucharz, to clean the navigational bridge floor—a task that promoted safety and cleanliness. He was disrespectful, raised his voice during the hearing, and admitted he would not perform the task because it was “not his duty.” The formal warning was recorded in the vessel’s logbook. Petitioner’s resignation was voluntary; the acceptance email guaranteed repatriation and payment of wages until arrival home. The Notice of Dismissal dated May 20, 2015 was sent nearly a month after his resignation and was refused by petitioner. Respondents maintained that insubordination under the POEA Standard Contract justified termination, but petitioner had already severed the relationship by resigning. After repatriation, petitioner executed a Debriefing Report on May 22, 2015, stating “resign” as the reason for sign-off and giving positive feedback on policies, working conditions, and his relationship with officers.

• Findings of the Labor Arbiter: The LA ruled that constructive dismissal was substantially established. The order to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor was not shown to be part of a steward’s duties; the document titled “Function Description: Steward” submitted by respondents carried no weight as it was not received or signed by petitioner. The LA further noted that the issuance of both a warning and a subsequent Notice of Dismissal lent credence to the allegation that the Chief Mate had threatened dismissal. Respondents were ordered to pay US$192,458.22, plus damages and attorney’s fees.

• Findings of the NLRC and CA: Both tribunals reversed the LA. The NLRC found that petitioner resigned on April 21, 2015, and that resignation was accepted the same day; thus, petitioner pre-terminated his own contract. The Notice of Dismissal came later and was immaterial. Under the POEA Standard Contract, a seafarer must obey the master’s lawful commands, and stripping and waxing the navigational bridge—a maintenance and cleanliness task—was part of the steward’s occasional duties. Petitioner’s allegations of harassment were unsubstantiated; the Debriefing Report contradicted them. The CA upheld these findings, observing that it took petitioner nearly two months after his repatriation to file an illegal dismissal complaint, and only after respondents had filed an insubordination complaint with the POEA.

• Constructive Dismissal: Petitioner maintained that the order to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor fell outside his contractual duties and responsibilities as a steward. The Chief Mate’s immediate accusation of insubordination, the issuance of a formal warning, and the persistent threats of dismissal created hostile and unbearable working conditions that left him no reasonable alternative but to resign. Consequently, the resignation was involuntary and constituted constructive dismissal.

• Double Penalty: Petitioner argued that he was penalized twice for the same alleged infraction—first through the formal warning and subsequently through the Notice of Dismissal—rendering the dismissal illegal on the ground of double jeopardy in employment.

• Voluntary Resignation: Respondents countered that petitioner voluntarily resigned on April 21, 2015, and that resignation was expressly accepted. The post-resignation Notice of Dismissal was never served on him and did not alter the voluntary nature of the employment separation. Petitioner’s own Debriefing Report corroborated the intention to resign and gave no indication of mistreatment.

• Lawful Command: Respondents argued that under Section 1(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Contract, petitioner had a duty to obey the lawful commands of the master or any person lawfully acting in his stead. Stripping and waxing the navigational bridge floor was an occasional duty of a steward, as attested to by three other experienced stewards. The order was therefore lawful, and petitioner’s outright refusal constituted insubordination.

• Lack of Constructive Dismissal: Because the resignation was voluntary and the order lawful, the requisites of constructive dismissal were absent. Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence of harassment, discrimination, or unbearable working conditions; his self-serving claims could not overcome the contemporaneous documents.

• Procedural Issues: Respondents further contended that the NLRC’s decision had attained finality because petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, and that the CA’s decision likewise became final because petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was an unsigned pleading that produced no legal effect.

• Constructive Dismissal: Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed from his employment.

• Double Penalty: Whether petitioner’s dismissal was illegal on the ground that he was penalized twice for the same infraction.

• Constructive Dismissal: The resignation was voluntary; constructive dismissal was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The order to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor was a lawful command under Section 1(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Contract, which requires a seafarer to obey the master’s lawful orders and comply with company safety policies. Respondents submitted affidavits from three stewards who affirmed that stripping and waxing the navigational bridge was an occasional duty assignable by the chief officer. Petitioner’s contrary assertion was unsupported. The Minutes of Hearing held on April 18, 2015 clearly recorded that petitioner admitted disregarding the order and demanded repatriation; his belated claim that he merely asked for a postponement was unsubstantiated. The Debriefing Report petitioner himself filled out upon repatriation stated “resign” as the reason for sign-off and reported good policies, acceptable working conditions, and good relationships with officers—directly contradicting his allegations of harassment and an unbearable atmosphere. The contention of fear for his safety was belied by the undisputed fact that he remained on board for over a month after his resignation without any untoward incident. Under the test set in Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., a reasonable person in petitioner’s position would not have felt compelled to give up employment under the circumstances. Bare, uncorroborated allegations of constructive dismissal cannot prosper.

• Double Penalty: In view of the finding that petitioner voluntarily resigned, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether he was penalized twice.

• Constructive dismissal and resignation: Constructive dismissal is the quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; it exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer becomes so unbearable that the employee has no choice but to forego continued employment. It amounts to involuntary resignation brought about by harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions. The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position. Resignation, by contrast, is the voluntary relinquishment of an office, where the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment; the employee’s acts before and after the alleged resignation are determinative of intent. (Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., 701 Phil. 612 (2013))

• Burden of proof in constructive dismissal cases: The employee who claims constructive dismissal bears the burden of proving that the resignation was involuntary with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Bare, self-serving allegations, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence. (Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418 (2015); Italkarat 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020)

• Liberal application of procedural rules in labor cases: The NLRC is not bound by technical rules of procedure and may liberally construe its rules to carry out the objectives of the Constitution and the Labor Code. The NLRC’s exercise of discretion in giving due course to a belated motion for reconsideration, especially when it affirms the earlier decision on the merits, will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion. (Opinaldo v. Ravina, 719 Phil. 584 (2013))

• Review of factual findings when tribunals conflict: Although Rule 45 limits review to questions of law, when the findings of the Labor Arbiter conflict with those of the NLRC and the CA, the Supreme Court may reexamine and weigh the evidence to resolve the inconsistency.

• “Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.” (quoting Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.)

• “Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. … As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he or she, in fact, intended to sever his or her employment.” (quoting Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.)

• “Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.” (citing Italkarat 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio)

• The Court deferred to the NLRC’s liberal treatment of procedural rules: “We defer to the exercise of discretion by the NLRC and uphold its judgment in applying a liberal construction of its procedural and technical rules to this case in order to ventilate and resolve the issues … and fully resolve the case on the merits.” (quoting Opinaldo v. Ravina)

• Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., 701 Phil. 612 (2013) — Controlling precedent; the Court relied on its definitions of constructive dismissal and resignation, and its test for determining whether a resignation is involuntary.

• Opinaldo v. Ravina, 719 Phil. 584 (2013) — Applied in rejecting respondents’ procedural challenge; the Court adopted its ruling that the NLRC’s liberal application of procedural rules to reach a merits-based resolution should be respected.

• Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418 (2015) — Cited for the principle that a seafarer who resigned must prove constructive dismissal with clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

• Italkarat 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020 — Cited to underscore that bare, uncorroborated allegations of constructive dismissal cannot be credited.

• Section 1(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-going Ships: Provides that the seafarer has the duty to be obedient to the lawful commands of the master or any person who shall lawfully succeed him and to comply with company policy, including safety policy and procedures. Applied to hold that the Chief Mate’s order to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor—a task related to safety and maintenance—was a lawful command that the steward was bound to obey.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. No separate opinions were filed.