Yap was employed as an electrician on a vessel for a 12-month contract. After 3 months, the vessel was sold and scrapped, effectively terminating Yap's employment. Yap argued this was an illegal dismissal and that he was entitled to payment for the remaining 9 months of his contract. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC agreed, but the Court of Appeals only granted 3 months' pay based on a law allowing 3 months' pay for early termination. The Supreme Court ruled this 3-month provision violated equal protection by treating workers differently. It upheld the illegal dismissal and ruled Yap should receive pay for the full remaining 9 months of his contract.
Yap was employed as an electrician on a vessel for a 12-month contract. After 3 months, the vessel was sold and scrapped, effectively terminating Yap's employment. Yap argued this was an illegal dismissal and that he was entitled to payment for the remaining 9 months of his contract. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC agreed, but the Court of Appeals only granted 3 months' pay based on a law allowing 3 months' pay for early termination. The Supreme Court ruled this 3-month provision violated equal protection by treating workers differently. It upheld the illegal dismissal and ruled Yap should receive pay for the full remaining 9 months of his contract.
Yap was employed as an electrician on a vessel for a 12-month contract. After 3 months, the vessel was sold and scrapped, effectively terminating Yap's employment. Yap argued this was an illegal dismissal and that he was entitled to payment for the remaining 9 months of his contract. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC agreed, but the Court of Appeals only granted 3 months' pay based on a law allowing 3 months' pay for early termination. The Supreme Court ruled this 3-month provision violated equal protection by treating workers differently. It upheld the illegal dismissal and ruled Yap should receive pay for the full remaining 9 months of his contract.
Yap was employed as an electrician on a vessel for a 12-month contract. After 3 months, the vessel was sold and scrapped, effectively terminating Yap's employment. Yap argued this was an illegal dismissal and that he was entitled to payment for the remaining 9 months of his contract. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC agreed, but the Court of Appeals only granted 3 months' pay based on a law allowing 3 months' pay for early termination. The Supreme Court ruled this 3-month provision violated equal protection by treating workers differently. It upheld the illegal dismissal and ruled Yap should receive pay for the full remaining 9 months of his contract.
FACTS: Yap was employed as electrician of the vessel by Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. in behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping Limited for a 12 month contract. 3 months after Yap commenced his job as electrician, the vessel was sold and scrapped. Yap insisted that he was entitled to the payment of the unexpired portion of his contract since he was illegally dismissed from employment. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC Commission sided with seafarers arguments and ruled that there was illegal dismissal and granted the nine months wages remaining in his contract. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the illegal dismissal but only granted three months wages as per Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers Act). o Under Section 10 of Republic Act 8042, the liability of the employer for illegal termination of the employment of an overseas worker is: his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. ISSUE: Whether the provision of three months violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the aforesaid provision of three months violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it only applies to overseas workers with less than one year contacts and not to local workers with fixed term employment and also not to overseas workers with unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling on illegal dismissal but ruled that seafarer should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. Thus, seafarer should be paid his remaining nine months salary and not just three months as ruled by the Court of Appeals. The doctrine of operative fact is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. o This case should not be included in the aforementioned exception. To rule otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFWs security of tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law.