G.R. NO. 166363 - SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC., AND J.P. SAMARTZSIS MARITIME ENTERPRISES CO., S.A., VS. JERRY MAGUAD AND PORFERIO CEUDADANO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainants [herein respondents] have indeed been illegally dismissed from their employment. Accordingly, respondents [herein petitioners] are hereby directed to pay [herein respondents] their respective three (3) months' salaries, as follows: (a) For Jerry P. Maguad US$5,808.00 (b) Porferio L. Ciudadano US$3,990.00 On appeal by petitioners, the NLRC en banc in its Resolution [11] dated 31 May 2001, remanded the case to the Arbitration Branch of origin for immediate further proceedings for failure of the Labor Arbiter to appreciate material evidence such as: (1) the logbook extracts submitted by petitioners to corroborate its defense that respondents were dismissed for incompetence and (2) the confirmation letters presented by the respondents showing that they were signed off to transfer to another vessel due to crew reduction per Administration's status and Owner's Orders. Both parties had questioned the authenticity and veracity of the documentary evidence presented by the opposing party. To conform to the Resolution of the NLRC dated 31 May 2001, the Labor Arbiter conducted further proceedings. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision [12] on 13 February 2002 dismissing the respondents for being unfit and incompetent to perform their respective functions, overturning his previous Decision of 20 September 1999. The dispositive portion reads, thus: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the above-entitled case is hereby DISMISSED for being devoid of legal merit. To justify his findings, the Labor Arbiter made the following discussions, thus: After a careful re-evaluation of the evidence on record, this Office finds that it indeed overlooked the fact that there are pieces of evidence for the respondents other than the telex mentioned in the subject Decision. That contrary to its findings in the questioned Decision dated 20 September 1999 that respondents' evidence in support of their defense in this case consists solely of an "uncorroborated telex message," respondents actually have adduced other pertinent evidence such as logbook extracts and the Master's Statement supporting such logbook entries. Be it emphasized at this juncture that in our jurisdiction, it is settled and recognized that logbook entries constitute prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and have enjoy the stamp of presumption of regularity. [13] Aggrieved, it was the respondents' turn to interpose an appeal before the NLRC en banc. The NLRC rendered a Resolution [14] on 26 May 2003 affirming the afore-quoted findings of the Labor Arbiter, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby affirmed. Complainant's appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. Respondents moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing decision of the NLRC. However, said Motion for Reconsideration was denied through a Resolution [15] issued by the NLRC on 8 September 2003. Consequently,