G.R. NO. 146174 - DR. DANILO T. TING AND MRS. ELENA TING, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF GST FISHING ENTERPRISES, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PILARDO ISMAEL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in the above-entitled case: 1. Declaring the dismissal of Pilardo Ismael to be illegal, and ordering GST Fishing Enterprises and/or spouses Dr. Danilo Ting and Elena Ting, as owners thereof, to pay said Pilardo Ismael separation and backwages, as well as unpaid wages and commissions, as follows[:] Separation Pay --------------------------------- P 88,800.00 Backwages --------------------------------------- 32,066.66 Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------- 1,480.00 Unpaid Commissions --------------------------------- 751.50 TOTAL ----------------------------------------- P123,098.16 2. Dismissing complainant's claims for 13th month pay, and wage differentials, for lack of merit. [19] The Executive Labor Arbiter held that the Memorandum of 16 June 1998 was issued belatedly as private respondent was dismissed on 13 June 1998. [20] Ruling on the substantive aspect of the dismissal, the Executive Labor Arbiter held that there was no just cause for the dismissal on the basis of private respondent's act of leaving work by disembarking from "F/B Liza II" [21] on 11 June 1998 to go to Zamboanga City for medical attention. The Executive Labor Arbiter ratiocinated in this wise: Obviously, the complainant was dismissed because he left his lightboad (sic) (F/B "Liza II") and endorsed it to somebody whom the respondents allege was not qualified and authorized to act as "patron" thereof, and went to Zamboanga City, during an ongoing fishing expedition. There is no question about this. But the evidence on records (sic) shows that there was justification for what the complainant did; as already mentioned, he was then suffering from intensifying back and chest pains caused by an upper respiratory infection (Affidavit of Pilardo Ismael, Annex B). Surely, sickness justified an employee's being absent, or leaving his work. Consequently, there was not (sic) cause for complainant's dismissal on the basis of his leaving work on 11 June 1998 to go to Zamboanga City for medical attention. This, needless to say, renders illegal his dismissal. Anent [the] two (2) other previous incidents on 13 May 1997 and 30 May 1998 when the complainant also left the fishing boats to which he was assigned, despite instructions of the respondents to the contrary, the complainant had already been punished for these by suspensions. Apparently, his being suspended was proper because there was no explanation for what he did. But with respect to the latest incident of 11 June 1998, there was reason for him to leave his lightboat. This[,] thus[,] differentiates this incident from the two other previous incidents. [22] Consequently, the Executive Labor Arbiter awarded to private respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. [23] Moreover, petitioner-spouses were directed to pay private respondent unpaid commissions. [24] However, private respondent's claims for 13th month pay and wage differentials we