Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
National Capital Region
Manila
GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING
SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Complainant,
OS-POEA-0225-0811-2015
(POEA CASE NO. DAW 13-06-0800)
(POEA CASE NO. DAW 11-04-0543)

-versusALEX CARO QUIDATO,

Petitioner.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PETITIONER ALEX CARO QUIDATO, through the
undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Office, respectfully
submits this Motion for Reconsideration, states and avers:

Timeliness of the Motion

On June 14, 2016, Undersecretary Rebecca C. Chato, by
authority of the Secretary of Labor, rendered a Resolution in the
above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which states as follows:
WHEREFORE, the
Petition for Review, filed by
DISMISSED for lack of
December 2014 Order of
hereby AFFIRMED.

Appeal, herein treated as

Alex Caro Quidato is hereby
merit. Accordingly, the 15
the POEA Administrator is

SO RESOLVED
Considering that a copy of the afore-quoted Resolution was
received by petitioner only on August 1, 2016, he has until August
11, 2016 within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration from the
afore-quoted Resolution.

Grounds for Reconsideration

Contrary to the findings of the Office of the Secretary, the
affirmation made of the Administrators conclusions are bereft of
substantial evidence, based on self-serving allegations without
according due consideration to the petitioners evidence.

Arguments and Discussions

Contrary to the position of this
Honorable Office, the finding
that petitioner is guilty of abuse
of authority is not based on fact
and on law.
1.
Petitioner reiterates that the submission that he was guilty
of any other form of abuse of authority cannot hold water, while
reiterating the specific denials he earlier raised. The affirmation, in
particular, that there were valid grounds to justify that petitioner was
guilty of abuse of authority when he cited the misleading, inaccurate,
and unfounded allegations raised by complainant against petitioner
that the latter committed various infractions and misconduct should
be given minute consideration, if any at all.
2.
Petitioner directs the attention of this Honorable Office to
the primacy of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) Standard Employment Contract, the document which
embodies all the terms and conditions of employment that will govern
the employer-employee relationship. The parties are therefore bound
to dutifully comply with their respective obligations. The contract
therefore, has the compelling force of law and as a matter of
fact, constitutes the law between the parties. In the case of
Palisoc vs. Easways Marine, Inc., NLRC 1the Honorable
Commission stated that:
In the instant case, the complainant and
respondent-appellant are the parties signatories of a
POEA Standard Employment Contract approved by the
POEA. This contract embodies all the terms and
conditions of employment that will govern the employeremployee relationship. Each of the parties is legally
bound to faithfully comply with its contractual
obligations. This employment contract has the force
of law and in fact the law between the parties herein.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
3.
Well-settled is the fact that the POEA standard
employment contract is designed primarily for the protection and
benefit of Filipino seafarer in the pursuit of their employment on board
ocean-going vessels its provisions must, therefore, be construed
1

NCR CA No. 017801-99, 29 December 1999,

2

and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor or for the benefit of
the seamen and their dependents 2
4.
In this case, it is unfortunate that the POEA, and now this
Honorable Office, misinterpreted the statements of herein petitioner,
as no direct admission was made by him that his wife went on board
the vessel without the consent of the principal. The statement was not
an admission but merely a clarification on the arrangements between
himself and the Complainant through its fleet manager, Mr. Alejandro
Palanca.
5.
By way of reiteration, petitioner, before his contract with
the complainant, was employed by Parola Shipping, whose office was
in the same location before complainant itself occupied said unit.
During his vacation, he was contacted by the complainant-appellee to
be hired as Master soonest since they urgently need persons for their
vessel going to Korea. When he inquired how he was contacted by
the complainant-appellee, he was informed that his name was found
among the documents left by the previous occupant. He then
explained to them that he was still on vacation. Nevertheless, he
agreed that he may be deployed soon on the condition that his wife,
Mrs. Norberta Quidato, will accompany him and that the company will
be responsible for his wifes travel papers.
6.
As such, it is both surprising and ironic that Mr. Palanca
now turns around and feigns having no knowledge of said
arrangement. Due to the urgency of the situation, he was in direct
contact with Mr. Palanca as the agent of the principal in the
Philippines who facilitated his travel documents. Petitioner himself
has no direct links with the principal. Moreover, the latters wife was
included in the crewlist as one of the supernumeraries or visitors
(usually wife or children of the crew) allowed to go on board.
7.
Furthermore, he ordered the provision to be thrown
overboard because they were unfit for human consumption and to
avoid penalty that may be imposed by the Korean Port Authority,
should the latter find that the vessel carries expired food. Besides, the
decision petitioner made was with the conformity of the Chief Mate
and Chief Engineer. As stated in his provision report dated April 16,
2010, the Chief Cook Mr. Jesus Sison gave him a wrong information
on the real status of the food supply on board the vessel while it was
still docked in Manila Port on March 3, 2010 and that they still have
enough supply until April 10, 2010. It was during their voyage from
Manila to Pusan from March 16 to 21, 2015 that they discovered the
existence of the expired items in the Dry Goods and Deep Freeze
chamber, contrary to the declaration of the chief cook. He
underscored in said report that his concern over the smooth passage
of the vessel should not have been taken negatively.

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 318 SCRA 623

3

8.
The foregoing only goes to show that the complaint can
be attributed to the fact that the petitioner was merely vigilant in
remedying unseaworthiness of the food provisions of the vessel.
The acts of petitioner, if anything, only shows his concern for the
safety of the vessel and crew, which are gravely inconsistent with the
accusations/charges of abuse of authority. What is uncontroverted is
that instead of paying heed to the petitioners observations, the
complainant chose to fabricate a story of grave abuse of authority
against the petitioner.
9.
Petitioner, armed with his educational attainment, as well
as the extensive training, necessarily equipped him with the capacity
and expertise to determine the operations of the vessel. With his
experience and training for the past 38 years, he was in the best
position to determine the unworthiness of the food provisions of the
vessel. In the same vein, it was unlikely for petitioner to have
committed the charges imputed to him by complainant without
understanding the consequences.
10. One who goes abroad for employment does so at a great
sacrifice. But the petitioner was willing to bear all these just so he
could earn money to send back to his family. With this primary aim,
he surely knows better than to do anything that would jeopardize his
contract of work.
11. At the other end of the spectrum, a perusal of the
complainants evidence clearly reveals that the same contains selfserving and uncorroborated declarations and allegations, all of which
utterly fail the substantiality of evidence testa basic requirement in
administrative adjudication. No other evidence whatsoever was
presented by the complainant to support its claim, apart from onesided email communication, which seem targeted to charge the
petitioner with the erroneous ground of grave abuse of authority, and
were neither duly authenticated, or are of questionable origin, given
that their genuineness and due execution were severely tainted.
Sadly, it was this type of evidence that was given more credence by
this Honorable Office.
12. It is true that administrative quasi-judicial bodies like the
POEA are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the
adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be
construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary
rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or
equity are not controlling in the proceedings before the POEA, the
evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of
admissibility for it to be given some probative value 3.

Uichico vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 35

The instant complaint is a

retaliation to the NLRC illegal
dismissal case filed by the
petitioner
against
the
complainant.
13. Interestingly, the complainant failed to elucidate the
reasons behind the instant action against the petitioner. The
complaint was only the result of his refusal to pilot the ship from
docking and undocking in the port because he has no experience in
piloting a vessel.
The tugboat personnel moreover, do not
understand English, which compromises his role as a Captain even
more. This was obviously a retaliatory tactic made by the complainant
due to the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner against the
complainant in NLRC Iloilo City docketed as SRAB VI Case No. (M)
11-02-0009 entitled Alex Quidato vs. Global Gateway Services, et al.
14. In petitioners Position Paper dated April 6, 2011
submitted in said case, it must be emphasized that the vessel M.V.
Markella was a chartered vessel. During the voyage of M.V. Markella
in Japan, the charterer ordered thru telephone that the petitioner will
dock the vessel in the port of Japan without the aid or assistance of
docking pilot. The petitioner argued with the charterer that it is
against international safety policy to dock a vessel without the
assistance of docking pilot, as the docking pilot association of Japan
is very strict, and any damage that will be caused by the vessel
without following the standards of docking pilot association of Japan
would be detrimental to the safety of the vessel. The petitioner
continued the docking of the vessel M.V. Markella but with assistance
of a docking pilot in the port of Japan, because the docking of the
vessel in the absence of the docking pilot is against international
safety policy and will put the safety of the vessel and the condition of
the port at risk.
15. After such incident, petitioner continued to perform his
duties as Master of the vessel, despite the fact that the character of
the charterer had become more hostile. Nonetheless, petitioner
dismissed such as a temporary work situation. He thought and
wanted to believe that the charterer would later realize that the
petitioner did not mean any harm in airing his concerns and
eventually would return to good working terms. With that hope in
mind, petitioner endured the hardship and worked diligently, thinking
that the situation would change. Unfortunately, however, that was not
the case.
16. While the vessel was docked in Korea, the charterer
confronted petitioner regarding the docking the latter did in Japan
with the assistance of the docking pilot. The charterer went so far
as to malign the petitioner, calling him an expensive Master. On
5

April 17, 2010, petitioner was surprised when he was given a plane
ticket for his repatriation, without so much as notice or hearing in
order to properly put up a defense against the allegations against
him.
17. On April 17, 2010, petitioner arrived in the Philippines and
immediately reported to the manning agency. However, instead of
helping out the petitioner, complainant manning agency refused to
render any form of assistance. Worse, the complainant manning
agency apprised petitioner that he cannot claim his unpaid earned
wages, which brought about the case for illegal dismissal docketed as
SRAB VI Case No. (M) 11-02-0009 entitled Alex C. Quidato vs.
Global Gateway Services, etc.
Assuming
arguendo
that
petitioner is at fault, suspension
for one year is too harsh a
penalty to mete out against him.
18. Granting arguendo that there is truth to the allegations of
herein complainant, suspension for one year is an inequitable
penalty considering that petitioner has been a seafarer for the past
38 years who rose from the ranks to his present position as Master.
In addition, this is his first contract with the complainant.
19. Suspension is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to
an employee and must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. It bears stressing that it is the policy of the state to assure
the right of workers to security of tenure (Article XIII, Sec. 3, 1987
Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice
4
Furthermore, the state guarantees a worker security of tenure,
which can well be his most precious economic rightthus, all efforts
must be exerted to protect him from unjust deprivation of his job. 5
As ruled in Bundoc vs. Peoples Bank and Trust Company 6,
when a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only
possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be
protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his job. With the
welfare of his family in mind, the respondent-appellant will never
attempt to do anything which will jeopardize his profession, his only
possession and source of livelihood. Thus, to deprive him of his
employment is to cause his family to suffer. Unemployment brings
untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wageearner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs could be
avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under all
circumstances of a case, the workers should not be deprived of their
means of livelihood. From the strictly juridical standpoint, it cannot be
too strongly stressed that where a decision may be made to rest on
4

Rance vs. NLRC, 163 SCRA 279.

Quijano vs. Mercury Drug Corporation, 292 SCRA 109
6
103 SCRA 599
5

informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all equities of the case
must be accorded their weight.
Petitioner therefore, repleads that this Honorable Office
reconsider the prayer the penalty be reduced to six (6) months,
should they find no merit to grant reconsideration.

Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that the Resolution dated June 14, 2016 be RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE, and a new one be entered dismissing the complaint.
Makati City for City of Manila, August 9, 2016.
SAPALO VELEZ BUNDANG & BULILAN
Counsel for Petitioner
th
11 Floor, Security Bank Centre,
Ayala Avenue, Makati City
Tel. No. 891-1316 to 19
Email add: info@sapalovelez.com
By:
DENNIS R. GORECHO
Attorneys Roll No. 44352
PTR No. 5331094; Makati City; 01-07-2016
IBP No. 1024115; PPLM; 01-11-2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0016897;
Pasig City; 03-16-2016

- NOTICE Undersecretary Rebecca C. Chatto

Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment
6th Floor, DOLE Building
Intramuros, Manila
Greetings:
Please include in the calendar of this Honorable Office the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration for the resolution and approval
on August 18, 2016, Thursday at 10:00 in the morning.

DENNIS R. GORECHO

Served to:
THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER
GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC.
12/F De Leon Bldg. 1151 M.H. Del Pilar cor.
Nuesta Sra. De Guia St. Ermita, Manila

EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE

I declare that on August 11, 2016, I served copies of the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration by registered mail under
Registry Receipt No. ______ in the manner prescribed under Rules
of Court, Rule 13, 7, because personal service is impractical due to
distance.

DENNIS R. GORECHO