PERT/CPM v. Vinuya, G.R. No. 197528, Sept.

5, 2012
FACTS: Respondents were contracted by the agency for deployment to work as aluminum
fabricator/installer in Modern Metal in Dubai, UAE. The contract was for 2 years, approved by POEA,
providing 9 working hours a day, a salary of 1,350 AED with overtime pay, food allowance, free and
suitable housing, free transportation, free laundry, free medical and dental services. However, in Dubai,
Modern Metals gave them appointment letters with terms different from those they signed in the
Philippines increasing their employment terms, reducing salaries, allowances, and benefits. The
working conditions were also not as promised. They complained to their agency but to no avail. Due to
unbearable living and working condition, they resigned from their job and indicated personal/family
problems as their reasons. (except for Era who mentioned real reason). On March 15, 2008, respondents
file a complaint for illegal dismissal against PERT CPM. They agency alleged that they were not illegally
dismissed because they resigned voluntarily. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding that they
voluntarily resigned. Respondents appealed to NLRC which reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter. NLRC
pointed out that signing of different contract in Dubai is illegal. NLRC ordered the payment of agency to
pay the salary, placement fee, and exemplary damages to respondents. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by NLRC, but modified their judgment adjusting the awards,
particularly their salaries, in light of courts ruling in Serrano striking down the clause in Sec 10, par 5, RA
8042 which limits the entitlement of illegally dismissed OFW. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and
questioned the applicability of Serrano ruling. This was denied. CA upheld NLRCs decision.
ISSUE: W/N RA 10022, which was enacted on March 8, 2010, restoring the subject clause in Sec 10 of RA
8042 being amendatory in nature can be applied retroactively
HELD: No. Amendment introduced by RA 10022 cant be given retroactive application because it will
result in an impairment of right that had accrued to the respondents by virtue of Serrano ruling

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. and SKIPPERS MARITIME SERVICES, INC., LTD., vs.NATHANIEL
DOZAG.R. No. 175558 February 8, 2012
FACTS: Skippers United Pacific, Inc. deployed, in behalf of Skippers, De Gracia, Lata, and Aprosta to work
on boardthe vessel MV Wisdom Star for 10 months, 12 months and 12 months respectively. Paragraph 2
of all theemployment contracts stated that: "The terms and conditions of the Revised Employment
ContractGoverning the Employment of All Seafarers shall be strictly and faithfully observed." No
employmentcontract was submitted for Nathaniel Doza.De Gracia, et al. claimed that Skippers failed to
remit their respective allotments for almost five months,compelling them to air their grievances with
the Romanian Seafarers Free Union. The ITF Inspector AdrianMihalcioiu of the Romanian Seafarers
Union sent Captain Savvas of Cosmos Shipping a fax letter, relayingthe complaints of his crew, namely:
home allotment delay, unpaid salaries (only advances), late provisions,lack of laundry services (only one
washing machine), and lack of maintenance of the vessel (perforated andunrepaired deck). To date,
however, Skippers only failed to remit the home allotment for the month of December 1998. On 28
January 1999, De Gracia, et al. were unceremoniously discharged from MV WisdomStars and
immediately repatriated. Upon arrival in the Philippines, De Gracia, et al. filed a complaint forillegal
dismissal with the Labor Arbiter and prayed for payment of their home allotment for the month
of December 1998, salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts, moral damages, exemplary
damages,and attorneys fees.Skippers, on the other hand, claims that at around 2:00 a.m. on 3
December 1998, De Gracia, smellingstrongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of Gabriel Oleszek, Master of
MV Wisdom Stars, and was rude,shouting noisily to the master. De Gracia left the masters cabin after a
few minutes and was heard shoutingvery loudly somewhere down the corridors.Skippers also claims
that at 12:00 noon on 22 January 1999, four Filipino seafarers, namely Aprosta, DeGracia, Lata and Doza,
arrived in the masters cabin and demanded immediate repatriation because theywere not satisfied with
the ship. De Gracia, et al. threatened that they may become crazy any moment anddemanded for all
outstanding payments due to them.Skippers also claims that, due to the disembarkation of De Gracia, et
al., 17 other seafarers disembarkedunder abnormal circumstsances.29 For this reason, it was suggested
that Polish seafarers be utilized insteadof Filipino seamen.Since De Gracia, et al. pre-terminated their
contracts, Skippers claims they are liable for their repatriationexpenses33 in accordance with Section
19(G) of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)Memorandum Circular No. 55. Skippers
also prayed for payment of moral damages and attorneys fees.LA: Dismissed action for lack of merit
because the seafarers voluntarily pre-terminated their employmentcontracts by demanding for
immediate repatriation due to dissatisfaction with the ship.NLRC: Dismissed De Gracia, et al.s appeal for
lack of merit and affirmed the LAs decision. They alsoconsidered De Gracia, et al.s claim for home
allotment for December 1998 unsubstantiated.CA: Granted De Gracia, et al.s petition and reversed the
decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. The telexmessage was "a self-serving document that does not
satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence, or thatamount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusionthat petitioners indeed voluntarily demanded
their immediate repatriation."
ISSUE: W/N respondents voluntarily requested to be repatriated based on the telex message sent
HELD: NO. We deny the petition and affirm the CA Decision, but modify the award.