Case Digest: Grand Asian Shipping Lines v. Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, January 29, 2014

 Labor Law | Art. 128

Facts:

  • Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. (GASLI) is a domestic corporation engaged in transporting liquified petroleum gas (LPG) from Petron Corporation’s refinery in Limay, Bataan to Petron’s Plant in Ugong, Pasig, and Petron’s Depot in Rosario, Cavite.
  • One of the Oilers, Richard Abis, reported an allegation of illegal activity involving fuel pilferage by respondents aboard GASLI’s vessel M/T Dorothy Uno
  • An investigation revealed that fuel oil was misdeclared as consumed fuel in the Engineer's Voyage Reports and then sold to other vessels; proceeds were divided among the crew.
  • A formal complaint for qualified theft was filed against the respondents.
  • GASLI terminated the respondents' employment after placing them under preventive suspension.
  • Several other employees and crewmembers of GASLI's two other vessels were likewise suspended and terminated from employment.
  • Respondents filed complaints for illegal suspension and dismissal, non-payment of salaries, and other benefits.
  • Labor Arbiter: Found the dismissal of all 21 complainants illegal and ordered their reinstatement, backwages, money claims, damages, and attorney's fees. The filing of a criminal case for qualified theft against them did not justify their termination from employment.
  • NLRC: Struck down the monetary awards given by the Labor Arbiter, which, it ruled, were based merely on the computations unilaterally prepared by the complainants. It is the Secretary of Labor or the Regional Director who has jurisdiction to impose the penalty of double indemnity for violations of the Minimum Wage Laws and not the Labor Arbiter.
Issue: WoN the Labor Arbiter has authority to impose the penalty of double indemnity for violations of the Minimum Wage Law. YES

 First, there is no provision in RA 6727 or RA 8188 which precludes the Labor Arbiter from imposing the penalty of double indemnity against employers.

Second, Article 217 of the Labor Code gives the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction over cases of termination disputes and those cases accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

Thus, in Bay Haven, Inc. v. Abuan the Court held that an allegation of illegal dismissal deprives the Secretary of Labor of jurisdiction over claims to enforce compliance with labor standards law.

This was also pronounced in People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, wherein we stated that the Secretary of Labor has no jurisdiction in cases where employer-employee relationship has been terminated.

We thus sustain the Labor Arbiter's award of double indemnity.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered