612 Phil. 1009
CARPIO, J.:
Petitioner Gualberto Aguanza was employed with respondent company Asian Terminal, Inc. from April 15, 1989 to October 1997. He was initially employed as Derickman or Crane Operator and was assigned as such aboard Bismark IV, a floating crane barge owned by Asian Terminals, Inc. based at the port of Manila.
As of October 1997, he was receiving the following salaries and benefits from [ATI]:a. Basic salary - P8,303.30;
b. Meal allowance - P1,800 a month;
c. Fixed overtime pay of 16 hours when the barge is assigned outside Metro Manila;
d. P260.00 per day as out of port allowance when the barge is assigned outside Manila.
Sometime in September 1997, the Bismark IV, together with its crew, was temporarily assigned at the Mariveles Grains Terminal in Mariveles, Bataan.
On October 20, 1997, respondent James Keith issued a memo to the crew of Bismark IV stating that the barge had been permanently transferred to the Mariveles Grains terminal beginning October 1, 1997 and because of that, its crew would no longer be entitled to out of port benefits of 16 hours overtime and P200 a day allowance.
[Aguanza], with four other members of the crew, stated that they did not object to the transfer of Bismark IV to Mariveles, Bataan, but they objected to the reduction of their benefits.
When they objected to the reduction of their benefits, they were told by James Keith to report to the Manila office only to be told to report back to Bataan. On both occasions, [Aguanza] was not given any work assignment.
After being shuttled between Manila and Bataan, [Aguanza] was constrained to write respondent Atty. Corvite for clarification of his status, at the same time informing the latter of his willingness to work either in Manila or Bataan.
While he did not agree with private respondents' terms and conditions, he was nonetheless willing to continue working without prejudice to taking appropriate action to protect his rights.
Because of private respondents' refusal to give him any work assignment and pay his salary, [Aguanza] filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents.
On the other hand, private respondents claim that:
[Aguanza] was employed by [ATI] on February 1, 1996 as a Derickman in Bismark IV, one of the floating crane barges of [ATI] based in the port of Manila. In 1997, [ATI] started operation at the Mariveles Grains Terminals, Mariveles, Bataan. Beginning October 1, 1997, Bismark IV including its crew was transferred to Mariveles. For their transfer, [ATI] offered the crew the following:"I am asking you to reply to me by the 31st October 1997 if you wish to be transferred to Mariveles under the following salary conditions:
- regular 40-hour duty Monday to Friday
- overtime paid in excess of 8 hours/day
- overtime paid on Saturdays and Sundays
- no additional allowance
- no transportation"
By way of reply to the memorandum, [Aguanza] along with all the members of the crew of Bismark IV namely: Rodrigo Cayabyab, Wilfredo Alamo, Eulogio Toling, Jonathan Pereno, Marcelito Vargas, Erwin Greyblas and Christian Paul Almario (crew member Nestor Resuello did not sign the said letter) answered through an undated letter, to wit:"We used to receive the following whenever we are assigned out of town.
1) P200.00 a day allowance
2) P60.00 per day food allowance
3) 16 hours per day fixed overtime
We have been receiving this [sic] compensation and benefits whenever we are assigned to Bataan. x x x"
They asserted that they have no objection to their assignment in Mariveles, Bataan but on the former terms and conditions.
Eventually, the other members of the crew of Bismark IV accepted the transfer and it was only [Aguanza] who refused the transfer.
On November 12, 1997, [Aguanza] wrote the company asserting that he did not request his transfer "to Manila from Mariveles." He stressed that he was willing to be assigned to Mariveles so long that there is no diminution of his benefits while assigned to Mariveles, which meant, even if he was permanently based in Mariveles, Bataan, he should be paid 24 hours a day - 8 hours regular work and 16 hours overtime everyday plus P200.00 per day allowance and P60.00 daily food allowance.
[Aguanza] insisted on reporting to work in Manila although his barge, Bismark IV, and its other crew were already permanently based in Mariveles, Bataan. [Aguanza] was not allowed to time in in Manila because his work was in Mariveles, Bataan.
In [Aguanza]'s appointment paper, [Aguanza] agreed to the following conditions printed and which reads in part:"That in the interest of the service, I hereby declare, agree and bind myself to work in such place of work as ATI may assign or transfer me. I further agree to work during rest day, holidays, night time or other shifts or during emergency."[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this office is convinced that complainant Aguanza was illegally dismissed by respondents. Consequently, respondent is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him full backwages and benefits from the time he was dismissed effective November 1997 until he is actually reinstated. Considering that it is clear from respondents' letters that their intention is to assign complainant to Mariveles, Bataan, he is entitled to all the salary and benefits due him if assigned to said place.
Anent the claim of complainant for the cash conversion of his vacation and sick leave credits, respondents never denied their liability for the same. Consequently, they are, likewise, also ordered to pay complainant the cash equivalent of his unused vacation and sick leave credits.
Considering that the respondents are obviously in bad faith in effecting the dismissal as reflected in their ordering him to report back for work but refusing to accept him back, complainant should be awarded moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively.
Further, respondents are ordered to pay complainant attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total amount awarded in favor of the complainant.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The fixed overtime of 16 hours, out-of-port allowance and meal allowance previously granted to [Aguanza] were merely supplements or employment benefits given under a certain condition, i.e., if [Aguanza] will be temporarily assigned out-of-port. It is not fixed and is contingent or dependent of [Aguanza's] out-of-port reassignment. Hence, it is not made part of the wage or compensation.
This Court also finds utter bad faith on the part of [Aguanza]. [Aguanza] claims that he does not contest his permanent reassignment to Mariveles, Bataan and yet he insisted on reporting to Manila. If petitioner had only been sincere to his words, he would have reported to Mariveles, Bataan where his work is, and in compliance with the employment contract with [ATI].
There was no illegal dismissal since it was [Aguanza] who refused to report to Mariveles, Bataan where he was assigned.
[Aguanza's] other claims have no basis and, accordingly, should be denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is DENIED and ORDERED DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
- It was grievous error for the Court of Appeals to uphold the decision of the NLRC in NLRC NCR CA No. 021014-99 notwithstanding the fact that respondents' appeal to the NLRC was never perfected in view of the insufficiency of the supersedeas bond posted by them.
- There is no factual or legal basis for the respondent Court of Appeals to hold that respondents were correct in not allowing petitioner to "time-in" in Manila.
3. The Court of Appeals likewise disregarded the evidence on record and applicable laws in declaring that the petitioner is not entitled to the cash conversion of his vacation and sick leave credits as well as in denying petitioner's claims for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.[7]