G.R. No. 175209 - ROLANDO L. CERVANTES, VS. PAL MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR WESTERN SHIPPING AGENCIES, PTE., LTD.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Rolando L. Cervantes to have been illegally dismissed and ordering respondents PAL Maritime Corporation and Western Shipping Agencies PTE, LTD to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of US$7,440.00, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, representing his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract, plus 10% thereof as attorneys fees, all as discussed and computed above. All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [9] The Labor Arbiter focused on two (2) correspondences: 1) the letter- communication dated 20 September 1995 issued by respondent Western Shipping which terminated petitioners employment, and 2) the subsequent reply of petitioner acceding to Western Shippings decision to terminate him. The Labor Arbiter construed these correspondences as involuntary repatriation of petitioner. On appeal, the Labor Arbiters Decision was reversed by the First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC initially referred the case to another Labor Arbiter, Thelma M. Concepcion (Labor Arbiter Concepcion) for review and submission of a report pursuant to Article 218 (c) [10] of the Labor Code. Labor Arbiter Concepcion found that petitioner was not dismissed from service but that he opted to be relieved from his post. This finding was adopted by the NLRC. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC in an Order dated 26 December 2002, prompting him to file a petition before the Court of Appeals. Finding that petitioner voluntarily resigned, the Court of Appeals, on 14 August 2006, denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC. Petitioner elevated the case to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari raising the following issues: a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to his claims the (sic) under the POEA Employment Contract which arose from his illegal termination and what amount of evidence is required from the petitioner to prove their entitlement thereto. b) Whether or not an appeal without the joint declaration under oath is considered perfected? [11] We shall first tackle the procedural issue raised. Petitioner points out that the failure of respondent to file the required Joint Declaration Under Oath on the appeal bond warrants the dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection. On the other hand, respondents brush aside the late submission of their Joint Declaration Under Oath as a mere technicality. The pertinent provision of the NLRC Rules of Procedure governing at the time the appeal was made to the NLRC is Rule VI, Section 3. [12] Section 3 enumerates the following requisites for perfection of appeal: The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period; It shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond; and It shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds r