G.R. No. 95449 - PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CAPT. WENEFREDO N. ESTRADA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing circumstances, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent Philippine-Singapore Transport Services, its principal Intra Oil Supplies SBN BND and Fortune Life and General Insurance Co., Inc. (PSTSIs surety) to pay complainant (Estrada) jointly and severally the sum of THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY MALAYSIAN DOLLARS (M$13,530.00) or its peso equivalent at the time of payment (representing Estradas salaries covering the unexpired portion of his contract of employment) plus the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as refund of airplane expenses. [1] Dissatisfied, PSTS appealed to the NLRC on July 12, 1989. The NLRC, however, through its questioned Resolution dated August 17, 1990, [2] held that the charge of private respondents incompetency was unmeritorious. The real reason for private respondents repatriation was not due to his incompetence but due to his refusal to tow another barge belonging to the charterer and which refusal had been shown to be justified and fully explained by the private respondent. Thus, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA and dismissed the appeal of petitioner for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration dated September 14, 1990 was filed by petitioner, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated September 25, 1990. [3] Hence, this petition. [4] Petitioner argued that the private respondents inability to foresee and anticipate the quantity of ropes to be used during the voyage could only be attributed to his incompetency. As master of the vessel, he was required to see to it that the ship was fitted with all the things necessary for its smooth operation. The fact that the shortage of ropes was made known by private respondent to Mr. Bala did not cure his incompetency. The request for fresh ropes should have been directed to his principal, and not to a third person (Mr. Bala) who was not even connected with the petitioner nor with its principal. Petitioner likewise asserted that in defying the charterers request to tow its barge, the private respondent failed to comply with his duty to maintain good relationship and cooperate with the charterer as laid down on his employment contract, an incident which led to the off-hiring of Sea Carrier I and the consequent cancellation of the charter agreement. And the cancellation of the charter agreement carried with it the dismissal from service of private respondent because he was a project employee whose employment was coterminous with the charter of Sea Carrier I. It could not therefore be said that the dismissal was not valid. As to the procedural aspect of private respondents dismissal, petitioner alleged that his termination was done pursuant to the terms of the employment contract, hence, with due regard to due process of law. We are not persuaded by the foregoing arguments of petitioner. It is noteworthy to state that an employer is free to manage and regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment,