G.R. No. 216440 - JIMMY S. GALLEGO, VS. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., REGINALDO A. OBEN AND/OR SCANDIC SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD..

Ruling

accordingly in giving due course to Gallego's Petition. Respondents strongly reiterate that Gallego failed to comply with the rules in filing a petition for certiorari with the CA. The docket fees were not paid in full at the time of the filing of the petition, Gallego's original petition did not contain a certification of non-forum shopping, and the Supplemental Petition was filed out of time and is a prohibited pleading. Considering these procedural errors, the Decision of the CA should not be upheld. We do not agree. As discussed, procedural rules may be relaxed in the exercise of the court's equity jurisdiction for the most persuasive of reasons and where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition. [28] In this case, the CA exercised its discretion to relax the application of the rules especially upon finding that Gallego is illegally dismissed from employment. Respondents argue that there was valid termination of Gallego's employment due to the sale of the ship, M/V Eastern Falcon. Indeed, under Section 23 of the POEA-SEC, an employer may terminate a seafarer's contract due to sale of ship, lay-up or discontinuance of voyage. For such termination to be valid, the same provision states that the seafarer shall immediately be paid his earned wages, repatriation costs and one-month basic pay as termination pay, unless arrangements have been made for the seafarer to join another ship belonging to the same principal to complete his contract, and in the latter case, the seafarer shall be entitled to his basic wages until the date of joining the other ship. [29] Applying the foregoing provision and labor principles, respondents have the burden of proving the observance of due process and compliance to Section 23 of the POEA-SEC to consider the dismissal of Gallego valid. Respondents failed to observe the foregoing rules. We did not find any proof that Gallego was notified of the sale of the ship, M/V Eastern Falcon. If it were true that respondents had informed Gallego in August 2000 that his employment was terminated due to the sale of the ship, respondents should have immediately paid his monetary benefits or alternatively arranged for him to join another ship to complete his contract. We give more credence to Gallego's position that he was repeatedly promised re-deployment. Respondents do not even dispute Gallego's position. The foregoing clearly shows that Gallego's contract was pre-terminated without a just or valid cause for failure to notify him of the sale of the ship and to immediately pay the monetary benefits due him or to redeploy him to another vessel to finish his contract under the POEA-SEC. While Gallego is illegally dismissed from employment, We cannot uphold the LA's award of wages equivalent to 15 months from September 2000 to December 2001 and from January 2002 to December 2004. The LA treated Gallego as a regular employee awarding him backwages from the time of his illegal dismissal until the decis