Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

A seaman is not guilty of desertion unless he leaves the vessel with animo non revertendi, an intention not to return; mere words of frustration toward the master do not establish that intent. A dismissal for gross disrespect, insubordination, and unprovoked assault on a crew member is for valid cause and forfeits salary for the unexpired portion, but earned wages for work already rendered remain due, and replacement/repatriation costs under Section H(5) cannot be charged to a seaman who did not voluntarily resign.

Petitioner is the local manning agent of Singa Ship Management Pte., Ltd., a Singapore-based company. Private respondent Winefredo Z. Sua was employed by petitioner as radio officer on board M/V Singa Wilstream from November 28, 1988 to September 1989 with a monthly salary of U.S.$850.00. The POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels supplies the repatriation and replacement-cost provision invoked by petitioner.

Private respondent Winefredo Z. Sua served as radio officer on board M/V Singa Wilstream under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, with petitioner acting as the local manning agent of the Singapore-based owner. His employment ran from November 28, 1988 to September 1989, with a monthly salary of U.S.$850.00.

On July 27, 1989, while the vessel was anchored in Los Angeles, California, Sua and some crew members went on shore leave. Ship rules required them to return by 5:00 P.M., but the group missed the last boat and hired a service boat, reaching the ship at 8:30 in the evening. The captain and master, Bryan Pereira, together with some officers, were at the bridge. The captain reprimanded them for returning late and admonished Sua in particular because he was the highest-ranking member of the group. Sua, who was drunk, shouted: “Fuck your ass, captain! I don’t want to sail with you!” Bosun Rodolfo Sarmiento, who was nearby, was ordered to take Sua to his cabin. Sua cried out: “Fuck you two, two of you!” and hurled invectives at the captain and the bosun. Other crew members eventually pacified him and brought him down to his cabin.

The bosun then proceeded to the mess hall where five crew members were watching television and took a seat beside them. Sua appeared and asked the bosun, “Why you want to challenge me?” The bosun replied, “Why, spark?” Sua suddenly grabbed an air pistol from his waist and struck the bosun with its handle, hitting his nape and forehead. The bosun stood up but the others prevented him from fighting back, and the crew separated them. The bosun’s head bled profusely and he had to be given first aid treatment.

Later, at about 1:00 in the morning, Chief Officer Rakesh Nanda went down to inspect the bunker and saw Sua lowering his bag to the bunker barge. The chief officer tried to dissuade Sua from leaving the ship, but Sua refused, saying: “Sorry, but I don’t want to sail with the captain!” Sua boarded the barge and left the ship. The chief officer reported to the captain, who informed the Coast Guard of Sua’s desertion. The ship was left without a radio officer and was not allowed to leave Los Angeles; it was placed on “off-hire” for two days until a replacement arrived.

On December 20, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint against Sua before the POEA Adjudication Office for desertion, insubordination, and grave abuse of authority. Petitioner prayed for the imposition of appropriate sanctions under the POEA Standard Contract of Employment and reimbursement of U.S.$3,232.00 for agency and replacement cost, U.S.$18,287.14 for off-hire expenses, and ten percent of the total award as attorney’s fees.

In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, Sua alleged that the ship captain abused his authority and violated the employment contract; that the master compelled him to operate the radio equipment for the master’s personal whims and caprices, malversed the ship’s funds, slashed the food budget and starved the crew for several days at sea, eliminated their transportation fees to and from shore and other privileges, and harbored ill-feelings against Sua after Sua led his crewmates in informing the master of their sentiments; and that after Sua left the ship, the master refused to return his clothes and pay his salary and leave pay. Sua counterclaimed for U.S.$1,354.33 in unpaid leave pay, U.S.$612.00 in unpaid allotment for July 1989, U.S.$497.25 in unpaid shipboard pay for July 1989, the unexpired portion of his contract equivalent to two months, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The POEA found that Sua voluntarily resigned, while the NLRC found that he did not voluntarily resign but was dismissed by the ship captain, who at the height of their argument ordered him to disembark.

• Desertion: Petitioner argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reversing the POEA by misconstruing and wrongly interpreting the act of desertion.
• Administrative Penalty: Petitioner argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the POEA decision without applying the corresponding administrative penalty under the POEA Standard Contract of Employment.
• Replacement Costs: Petitioner argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in deleting the award in its favor despite substantial and convincing evidence supporting it.
• Liability for Consequences: Petitioner argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in disregarding the principle that a person is liable for all the logical consequences of his act.

• Desertion: Whether private respondent deserted the vessel, warranting the sanctions and administrative penalties under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
• Validity of Dismissal: Whether private respondent was dismissed and whether his dismissal was for a valid cause.
• Replacement and Repatriation Costs: Whether petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of U.S.$3,232.00 for replacement and repatriation costs under Section H(5), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
• Unpaid Wages for July 1989: Whether private respondent is entitled to unpaid leave, allotment, and shipboard pay for July 1989 despite his dismissal.

• Desertion: No. Private respondent did not desert because his words and acts did not show animo non revertendi; he was dismissed by the captain, so desertion penalties do not apply.
• Validity of Dismissal: Yes. The dismissal was for valid cause: gross disrespect and insubordination against the master and an unprovoked assault on the bosun constituted serious misconduct.
• Replacement and Repatriation Costs: No. Section H(5) applies only to a seaman who requests early termination; private respondent did not voluntarily resign but was dismissed, so petitioner must bear the replacement cost.
• Unpaid Wages for July 1989: Yes. The claims cover July 1989 work already rendered, not the unexpired portion of the contract, so the NLRC correctly affirmed the award.

• Desertion: In maritime law, desertion is the seaman’s abandonment of duty by quitting the ship without leave or permission and without justifiable cause before termination of engagement, with intent not to return. Mere unauthorized absence is not enough; animo non revertendi is essential. The SC applied this rule to Sua’s conduct: he left after a heated argument with the captain, having arrived late from shore leave; the master reprimanded him and refused to pay for their service boat; Sua shouted “Fuck your ass captain! I don’t want to sail with you!”; later he struck the bosun; and he was seen leaving with baggage while saying “Sorry, but I don’t want to sail with the captain!” The SC held that these words did not indicate a firm intention to leave and not return; at best they expressed what Sua felt toward his master and did not unequivocably establish an intent to abandon his job never to return. His acts did not reinforce that intent: after hurling invectives at the master, he calmed down and returned to his cabin, and the record is silent as to the events after he struck the bosun. The totality of the circumstances did not show animo non revertendi. The SC agreed with the NLRC that, at the height of the argument, the captain ordered Sua to disembark; to Sua, that order was a dismissal especially after he had assaulted the bosun, which explained why he did not report to petitioner’s office in Manila or file a complaint with the POEA. Being a seaman and radio officer was his means of livelihood, and it was hard to believe he would abandon his work simply because of a conflict with the captain; as the Solicitor General noted, Sua would not intentionally get himself stranded in a foreign land without means of support if he had not been dismissed. Thus, he did not desert the vessel, and the desertion penalties did not apply.

• Validity of Dismissal: The SC held that the dismissal was with valid cause. The master was acting in the performance of his duty when he demanded from Sua an explanation for his group’s tardiness, and Sua was the highest-ranking employee in the group. Instead of giving an explanation, Sua shouted at the master and cursed him, which was gross disrespect and insubordination against his superior and the highest official of the vessel. Worse, Sua committed an unprovoked assault on the bosun with a pistol handle in the presence of several people who executed separate statements narrating the incident; Sua did not deny or refute those statements, much less explain his aggressive behavior. A seaman’s assault with a pistol handle upon a member of the ship’s crew without sufficient provocation is tantamount to serious misconduct in connection with his work and a just cause for termination of employment. Such misconduct strips him of his right to salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract.

• Replacement and Repatriation Costs: Petitioner’s claim for expenses incurred in hiring a replacement cannot be sustained. Section H(5), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides: “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 provision is not applicable because Sua did not voluntarily resign; he was dismissed. It was only incumbent upon petitioner to look for his replacement. The NLRC therefore correctly deleted the U.S.$3,232.00 award in petitioner’s favor.

• Unpaid Wages for July 1989: Sua’s claims for unpaid leave, allotment, and shipboard pay cover the month of July 1989 and do not cover the unexpired portion of the contract. The NLRC did not err in granting those claims because Sua rendered work for July prior to his dismissal. The forfeiture arising from serious misconduct reaches only the salary for the unexpired portion of the contract, not earned wages for work already rendered. The award of U.S.$2,463.58 was therefore affirmed.

• Desertion in maritime law — Desertion is a seaman’s abandonment of duty by quitting the ship, not only without leave or permission but also without justifiable cause, before the termination of the engagement, and with the intent of not returning to the ship’s duty. Mere unauthorized absence is not desertion; the intent not to return must be shown. The SC applied this by finding that Sua’s utterances and departure did not establish the required intent to abandon his job permanently.
• Animo non revertendi — This is the essential intent not to return to the vessel. The SC held that Sua’s words at best expressed his feelings toward the master and did not unequivocably establish an intent to abandon his job never to return; his later conduct also did not reinforce such intent.
• Serious misconduct as just cause for termination — A seaman’s assault with a pistol handle upon a member of the ship’s crew without sufficient provocation is tantamount to serious misconduct in connection with his work and a just cause for termination. The SC applied this to Sua’s unprovoked assault on the bosun, committed in the presence of several people, which Sua did not deny or explain.
• Forfeiture of salary for unexpired portion — Serious misconduct that justifies dismissal strips the seaman of his right to salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. The SC applied this rule but distinguished it from earned wages for work already rendered.
• Section H(5) liability for repatriation and replacement costs — Under Section H(5), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, a seaman who requests early termination of his contract is liable for his repatriation cost and the transportation cost of his replacement. The SC held this provision inapplicable to a seaman who was dismissed rather than voluntarily resigned.

• “Desertion has been defined as (1) a seaman’s abandonment of duty by quitting ship, not only without leave or permission, but without justifiable cause, before termination of engagement; and (2) with the intent of not returning to the ship’s duty.” — The SC uses this definition to set the elements of desertion in maritime law, making intent not to return a core requirement.
• “It is essential that there be an animo non revertendi, an intention not to return.” — This states the decisive element that the SC found lacking in Sua’s case.
• “Contrary to petitioner’s allegations, the words private respondent uttered do not indicate the firm intention to leave and not to return to his job. At best, the words can be interpreted as expressing what private respondent felt towards his master. They do not unequivocably establish the intent to abandon his job, never to return.” — This is the SC’s application of the desertion rule to Sua’s statements, rejecting petitioner’s claim that they proved desertion.
• “A seaman’s assault with a pistol handle upon a member of the ship’s crew without sufficient provocation is tantamount to serious misconduct in connection with his work and a just cause for termination of employment.” — This articulates the basis for upholding Sua’s dismissal despite the absence of desertion.

• De la Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 177 SCRA 626 (1989) — Cited in support of treating gross disrespect and insubordination as just cause.
• Asian Design & Mfg. Corporation vs. Min. of Labor, 142 SCRA 79 (1986) — Cited with De la Cruz on the same point regarding gross disrespect and insubordination.
• Haverton Shipping, Ltd. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 135 SCRA 685 (1985) — Cited for serious misconduct as just cause and for the rule that such misconduct forfeits salary for the unexpired portion of the contract.
• Flynn vs. Waterman, S.S. Corporation, 44 F.Supp. 50 (1942) — Cited in defining desertion as requiring intent not to return.
• The M.S. Elliot, 277 F. 800 (1909) — Cited in the same definition of desertion.
• The Mary C. Conery, 9 F. 222 (1881) — Cited in the same definition of desertion.
• The Cripple Creek, 52 F.Supp. 710 (1943) — Cited in defining desertion and the requirement of animo non revertendi.

• Section H(5), Part II, POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels — Provides that “[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 SC held it inapplicable because Sua did not voluntarily resign but was dismissed, so petitioner could not recover the replacement cost from him.
• Table of Offenses and Corresponding Administrative Penalties, Appendix “2” to the POEA Standard Employment Contract — Provides that once abandonment and intent not to return are proven, the seaman may be dismissed by the master, or suspended by the POEA for three years as minimum penalty or delisted from the POEA registry as maximum penalty. Because the SC found no desertion, these desertion penalties were not imposed; the dismissal was nonetheless upheld on the separate ground of serious misconduct.