View full case

DIOSDADO TINGSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case, Diosdado Tingson Jr., Godofredo Oblefias, Carmeno Molino, and George Draper, were members of the crew of the vessel M/V "Sea Princess" owned by Sea Proud Shipping of Greece. They were hired by Sea Proud Shipping, represented by Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., as Chief Mate, Second Engineer, Fourth Engineer, and Carpenter, respectively. On August 16, 1983, while the vessel was in the port of Rosario, Argentina, Captain Manuel Tacata ordered the petitioners to disembark for repatriation to Manila. As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal, recovery of unpaid salaries, and non-payment of benefits against the private respondents. The private respondents alleged that the petitioners were repatriated due to acts of insubordination, incompetence, inefficiency, disrespect towards a superior officer, and abandonment of duty. The POEA ruled in favor of the private respondents, and upon appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the decision was affirmed. The petitioners then brought the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were denied due process of law. The Court determined that the petitioners had been unlawfully terminated from work and had been denied due process. The Court ordered the private respondents to pay the petitioners their unpaid salaries and other benefits, and the case was remanded to the POEA for computation of overtime pay and other unpaid benefits.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners were denied due process of law.

  2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioners was valid.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the petitioners were denied due process of law. They were not given the opportunity to be heard and defend themselves before their dismissal, as required by law.

  2. The Court declared that the dismissal of the petitioners was unlawful. The private respondents failed to comply with the mandatory procedure laid down by the Labor Code, which includes issuing written notice of the causes for termination and conducting a hearing before dismissal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The employer is obliged to observe the procedure laid down by the Labor Code, which includes providing the employee with a written notice of the causes for termination and affording the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.

  • Failure to comply with the mandatory procedure taints the dismissal with illegality.

  • The employer is bound to furnish the employee two notices, the written charge and the notice of dismissal, if after hearing dismissal is indeed warranted.

  • In the absence of compliance with the mandatory procedure, any judgment reached by the employer is void and inexistent.

  • The hearing conducted by the POEA in an illegal dismissal complaint is not a substitute for the pre-dismissal procedure required by law. The law sets forth the procedure to be followed prior to dismissal, and the hearing conducted by the POEA was on the petitioners' own complaint, which was filed after they had already been terminated.