Professional Documents
Culture Documents
299.x322. Ace Navigation Co. v. CA (2000)
299.x322. Ace Navigation Co. v. CA (2000)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 140364 August 15, 2000
ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC. an!o" CONNING S#IPPING $T%., petitioners,
vs.
COURT O& APPEA$S 'T#IRTEENT# %IVISION(, NATIONA$ $A)OR RE$ATIONS
COMMISSION '&IRST %IVISION( an OR$AN%O A$ONSAGA*, respondents.
D ! I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for revie" of the resolutions
#
of the !ourt of $ppeals
%
that dis&issed
the petition for certiorari filed b' petitioners and "hich denied their &otion for
reconsideration, respectivel'.
First, the facts.
In (une #))*, $ce Navi+ation !o., Inc. ,$ce Nav- recruited private respondent Orlando
$lonsa+a' to "or. as a bartender on board the vessel M/V 0Orient 1press0 o"ned b'
its principal, !onnin+ Shippin+ 2td. ,!onnin+-. 3nder their PO$ approved contract of
e&plo'&ent, Orlando shall receive a &onthl' basic salar' of four hundred fift' 3.S.
dollars ,3.S. 4*56.66-, flat rate, includin+ overti&e pa' for #% hours of "or. dail' plus
tips of t"o 3.S. dollars ,3.S. 4%.66- per passen+er per da'. 7e, "as also entitled to %.5
da's of vacation leave "ith pa' each &onth. The contract "as to last for one ,#- 'ear.
Petitioners alle+ed that on (une #8, #))*, Orlando "as deplo'ed and boarded M/V
0Orient 1press0 at the seaport of 7on+ 9on+. $fter the e1piration of the contract on
(une #8, #))5, Orlando returned to the Philippines and de&anded fro& $ce Nav his
vacation leave pa'. $ce Nav did not pa' hi& i&&ediatel'. It told hi& that he should
have been paid prior to his dise&bar.ation and repatriation to the Philippines. Moreover,
!onnin+ did not re&it an' a&ount for his vacation leave pa'. $ce Nav, ho"ever,
pro&ised to verif' the &atter and as.ed Orlando to return after a fe" da's. Orlando
never returned.
On Nove&ber %5, #))5, Orlando filed a co&plaint
8
before the labor arbiter for vacation
leave pa' of four hundred fift' 3.S. dollars ,3.S. 4*56.66- and unpaid tips a&ountin+ to
thirt' si1, thousand 3.S. dollars ,3.S. 48:,666.66-.
*
On Nove&ber #5, #)):, 2abor
$rbiter Felipe P. Pati ordered $ce Nav and !onnin+ to pa' ;ointl' and severall' Orlando
his vacation leave pa' of 3S4*56.66. The clai& for tips of Orlando "as dis&issed for
lac. of &erit.
5
Orlando appealed
:
to the National 2abor Relations !o&&ission ,N2R!- on Februar' 8,
#))<. In a decision
<
pro&ul+ated on Nove&ber %:, #))<, the N2R! ordered $ce Nav
and !onnin+ to pa' the unpaid tips of Orlando "hich a&ounted to 3S48:,666.66 in
addition to his vacation leave pa'. $ce Nav and !onnin+ filed a &otion for
reconsideration on Februar' %, #))= "hich "as denied on Ma' %6, #))).
=
On (ul' %, #))), $ce Nav and !onnin+ filed a petition for certiorari before the !ourt of
$ppeals to annul the decision of the N2R!. On (ul' %=, #))), the !ourt of $ppeals
pro&ul+ated a three>pa+e resolution
)
dis&issin+ the petition. Their &otion for
reconsideration filed on Septe&ber =, #))) "as denied on October =, #))). 7ence this
appeal.
In assailin+ the dis&issal of their petition on technical +rounds, petitioners ar+ued that
the !ourt of $ppeals erred in ri+idl' and technicall' appl'in+ Section #8, Rule #8
#6
and
Section #, Rule :5
##
of the #))< Rules of !ivil Procedure.
#%
The' also contend that the
respondent court erred in rulin+ that the' are the ones liable to pa' tips to Orlando.
The' point out that if tips "ill be considered as part of the salar' of Orlando, it "ill &a.e
hi& the hi+hest paid e&plo'ee on M/V 0Orient 1press.0 The ship captain, the hi+hest
ran.in+ officer, receives 3.S.48,666.66 per &onth "ithout tips. Orlando, "ho is a
bartender, "ill receive 3.S.48,*56.66 per &onth. $lle+edl', this "ill co&pel forei+n ship
o"ners to desist fro& hirin+ Filipino bartenders. It "ill create an unfavorable precedent
detri&ental to the future recruit&ent, hirin+ and deplo'&ent of Filipino overseas "or.ers
speciall' in service oriented businesses. It "ill also be a case of double co&pensation
that "ill un;ustl' enrich Orlando at the e1pense of petitioners. The' also stress that
Orlando never co&plained that the' should pa' hi& the said tips.
Respondent filed a t"o>pa+e co&&ent to the petition adoptin+ the resolution of the
!ourt of $ppeals dated (ul' %=, #))).
?e find &erit in the petition.
Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial ;ustice.
#8
ven
the Rules of !ourt &andates a liberal construction in order to pro&ote their ob;ective of
securin+ a +ust, speed' and ine1pensive disposition of ever' action and proceedin+.
#*
Since rules of procedure are &ere tools desi+ned to facilitate the attain&ent of ;ustice,
their strict and ri+id application "hich "ould result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
1
rather than pro&ote substantial ;ustice &ust al"a's be avoided.
#5
Thus, the dis&issal of
an appeal on purel' technical +round is fro"ned upon especiall' if it "ill result to
unfairness.
?e appl' these sound rules in the case at bar. Petitioners@ petition for certiorari before
the !ourt of $ppeals contained the certified true cop' of the N2R!@s decision dated
Nove&ber %:, #))<,
#:
its order dated Ma' %, #)))
#<
and the s"orn certification of non>
foru& shoppin+.
#=
Petitioners also e1plained that their counsel e1ecuted an affidavit of
proof of service and e1planation in the afternoon of (ul' #, #))). 7o"ever, he for+ot to
attach it "hen he filed their petition the follo"in+ da' because of the volu&e and
pressure of "or. and lac. of office personnel. 7o"ever, the Re+istr' Receipt,
#)
"hich is
the proof of &ailin+ to Orlando@s counsel, issued b' the !entral Post Office "as
attached on the ori+inal petition the' filed "ith the respondent court. It "as also
sta&ped
%6
b' the N2R! "hich is proof of receipt of the petition b' the latter. The affidavit
of service, "hich "as ori+inall' o&itted, "as attached on their &otion for
reconsideration.
%#
Si+nificantl', it "as dated (ul' #, #))). In vie" of the surroundin+
circu&stances, the subseAuent filin+ of the affidavit of service &a' be considered as
substantial co&pliance "ith the rules.
?e no" co&e to the &erits of the case. The issue is "hether petitioners are liable to
pa' the tips to Orlando.
The "ord B0tip0C has several &eanin+s, "ith ori+ins &ore or less obscure, connected
"ith 0tap0 and "ith 0top.0 In the sense of a su& of &one' +iven for +ood service, other
lan+ua+es are &ore specific, e.+., Fr. pourboire, for drin.. It is su++ested that Bthe "ordC
is for&ed fro& the practice, in earl' #=th c. 2ondon coffeehouses, of havin+ a bo1 in
"hich persons in a hurr' "ould drop a s&all coin, to +ain i&&ediate attention. The bo1
"as labelled To Insure Pro&ptnessD then ;ust "ith the initials T.I.P.
%%
It is &ore freAuentl' used to indicate additional co&pensation, and in this sense 0tip0 is
defined as &eanin+ a +ratuit'D a +iftD a presentD a feeD &one' +iven, as to a servant to
secure better or &ore pro&pt service. $ tip &a' ran+e fro& pure +ift out of benevolence
or friendship, to a co&pensation for a service &easured b' its supposed value but not
fi1ed b' an a+ree&ent, althou+h usuall' the "ord is applied to "hat is paid to a servant
in addition to the re+ular co&pensation for his service in order to secure better service
or in reco+nition of it. It has been said that a tip denotes a voluntar' act, but it also has
been said that fro& the ver' be+innin+ of the practice of tippin+ it "as evident that,
"hether considered fro& the standpoint of the +iver or the recipient, a tip lac.ed the
essential ele&ent of a +ift, na&el', the free besto"in+ of a +ratuit' "ithout a
consideration, and that, despite its apparent voluntariness, there is an ele&ent of
co&pulsion in tippin+.
%8
Tippin+ is done to +et the attention and secure the i&&ediate services of a "aiter,
porter or others for their services. Since a tip is considered a pure +ift out of
benevolence or friendship, it can not be de&anded fro& the custo&er. ?hether or not
tips "ill be +iven is dependent on the "ill and +enerosit' of the +iver. $lthou+h a
custo&er &a' +ive a tip as a consideration for services rendered, its value still depends
on the +iver. The' are +iven in addition to the co&pensation b' the e&plo'er. $ +ratuit'
+iven b' an e&plo'er in order to inspire the e&plo'ee to e1ert &ore effort in his "or. is
&ore appropriatel' called a bonus.
The N2R! and the !ourt of $ppeals held that petitioners "ere liable to pa' tips to
Orlando because of the contract of e&plo'&ent. ThusE
0The contract of e&plo'&ent entered into b' and bet"een the co&plainant and $ce
Navi+ation !o., Inc. ,p. =%, Record- clearl' provides 111E
@That the e&plo'ee shall be e&plo'ed on board under the follo"in+ ter&s and
conditionsE
#.# Duration of !ontractE ,#% &onths- #6 &onths re&ainin+ duration of contract
#.% PositionE Fartender
#.8 Fasic Monthl' Salar'E 3.S.4*56.66 Flat rate includin+ overti&e pa' for
#.* 7ours of ?or.E #% hrs. "or. dail'.
#.5 Overti&eE Plus tips of 3.S.4%.66 per passen+er per da'.
#.: Vacation 2eave "ith Pa'E %.5 da's/&o.@ ,record, p. =%-
0The record of this case sho"s that the respondent, in the !ontract of &plo'&ent 111
undertoo. to pa' to co&plainant @tips of 3.S.4%.66 per passen+er per da'.@ Get, there is
no sho"in+ that the said underta.in+ "as co&plied "ith b' the respondents.
0It "as thus a serious error on the part of the 2abor $rbiter to rule that the tips "ere
alread' paid, &uch less to rule that said tips "ere directl' paid to the cre" of M/V
0ORINT PRIN!SS.0 ?ith $rticle * of the 2abor !ode re&indin+ us that doubts should
be resolved in favor of labor, "e all the &ore find it co&pellin+ to rule that the
co&plainant is still entitled to the contractuall' covenanted su& of 3S48:,666.66. 111.0
2
?e disa+ree. The contract of e&plo'&ent bet"een petitioners and Orlando is
cate+orical that the &onthl' salar' of Orlando is 3S4*56.66 ,-at "at.. This alread'
included his overti&e pa' "hich is inte+rated in his #% hours of "or.. The "ords 0plus
tips of 3S4%.66 per passen+er per da'0 "ere "ritten at the line for overti&e. Since
pa'&ent for overti&e "as included in the &onthl' salar' of Orlando, the supposed tips
&entioned in the contract should be dee&ed included thereat.
The actuations of Orlando durin+ his e&plo'&ent also sho" that he "as a"are his
&onthl' salar' is onl' 3S4*56.66, no &ore no less. 7e did not raise an' co&plaint
about the non>pa'&ent of his tips durin+ the entire duration of his e&plo'&ent. $fter the
e1piration of his contract, he de&anded pa'&ent onl' of his vacation leave pa'. 7e did
not i&&ediatel' see. the pa'&ent of tips. 7e onl' as.ed for the pa'&ent of tips "hen
he filed this case before the labor arbiter. This sho"s that the alle+ed non>pa'&ent of
tips "as a &ere afterthou+ht to bloat up his clai&. The records of the case do not sho"
that Orlando "as deprived of an' &onthl' salar'. It "ill no" be un;ust to i&pose a
burden on the e&plo'er "ho perfor&ed the contract in +ood faith.
Further&ore, it is presu&ed that the parties "ere a"are of the plain, ordinar' and
co&&on &eanin+ of the "ord 0tip.0 $s a bartender, Orlando can not fei+n i+norance on
the practice of tippin+ and that tips are nor&all' paid b' custo&ers and not b' the
e&plo'er.
It is also absurd that petitioners intended to +ive Orlando a salar' hi+her than that of the
ship captain.1wphi1 $s petitioners point out, the captain of M/V 0Orient Princess0
receives 3S48,666.66 per &onth "hile Orlando "ill receive 3S48,*56.66 per &onth if
the tip of 3S4%.66 per passen+er per da' "ill be +iven in addition to his 3S4*56.66
&onthl' salar'. It "ill be a+ainst co&&on sense for an e&plo'er to +ive a lo"er ran.ed
e&plo'ee a hi+her co&pensation than an e&plo'ee "ho holds the hi+hest position in
an enterprise.
7o"ever, Orlando should be paid his vacation leave pa'. Petitioners denied this liabilit'
b' raisin+ the defense that the usual practice is that vacation leave pa' is +iven before
repatriation. Fut as the labor arbiter correctl' observed, petitioners did not present an'
evidence to prove that the' alread' paid the a&ount. The burden of provin+ pa'&ent
"as not dischar+ed b' the petitioners.
IN VIE/ /#EREO&, the resolutions of the !ourt of $ppeals in !$ H.R. SP No. 5856=
are reversed and set aside. The decision of the labor arbiter orderin+ petitioners to pa'
;ointl' and severall' the unpaid vacation leave pa' of private respondent, Orlando
$lonsa+a', in the a&ount of 3S4*56.66 and dis&issin+ his other clai& for lac. of &erit
is reinstated.
SO ORDRD.
3