SEASTAR Marine Services and Cicero L. MALUNDA vs. Lucio A. BUL-AN Jr. the boat after the incident.
the boat after the incident. He returned after 4 days with a priest and Atty.
November 25, 2004 | Callejo Sr., J. |
Digester: Endaya, Ana Kristina R.
SUMMARY: Seastar hired Bul-an as a seaman but was dismissed. Bul-an contends that
Paruginog harasses and assaults him while Paruginog and the Captain Master asserts
that Bul-an is of unsound mind and uncooperative. Bul-an filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and for damages. The LA ruled in Bul-an’s favor which the NLRC affirmed.
On January 12, 1999, Seastar’s MR was denied by NLRC. On April 14, 2000, Seastar
filed before the CA a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 and on April 29,
1999, CA dismissed it because Seastar failed to indicate the date when they filed the MR,
hence, CA had no way of ascertaining the timeliness of the filing of their petition. The
SC denied Seastar’s petition and ruled that Seastar’s filing of petition was not timely.
DOCTRINE:
3 essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (Santos v.
CA) 1. Date when notice of the judgment or final order or Resolution was received; 2.
Date when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; 3. Date when notice of
the denial thereof was received.
Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must
strictly observe the rules laid down by law
FACTS:
Read the first two sentence of the summary (below are the detailed facts which
are not relevant to the topic)
 Seastar hired Bul-an as a seaman
o 48 hours per week
o $350/month
o Term: 9 months
 He boarded M/V Blue Topaz but was then mauled by Paruginog which caused
bodily injuries. He reported this to Master Captain Jacobus who assured him that
he would settle it with Paruginog.
 Master Captain Jacobus reported to his superiors that:
o Bul-an was uncooperative, refused to obey his orders and those of the chief
officer, and often pretended to be ill in order to be free of duty.
o Jacobus expressed fears of getting into serious trouble in the future with the
Bul-an, and for this reason, wanted to have this man relieved.
o A note was inserted below that Bul-an had left without permission on the
evening at Villanueva, Spain. The letter was countersigned by several crew
members, including Paruginog.
 Apparently, Bul-an had again been maltreated by Paruginog that day.
Since the Captain was out on shore, Bul-an decided to immediately leave
Barbat with the intention of taking up the matter with Captain Jacobus.
 However, the Captain refused to accept his explanation and sided with
Paruginog.
 Paruginog
o Reported to Seastar Bul-an’s respondents unusual behavior since boarding the
ship, and the circumstances leading to the latters disembarkation.
o Denied the respondents allegations that he made threats to kill Bul-an.
 Captain Jacobus reiterated his complaints on Bul-an’s work and uncooperative
attitude in another letter to his superiors
o Captain explained that he was watching out for Bul-an for fear that the latter
would force the crew to do something so that Bul-an could get a free ticket
home.
 Because of the Captains refusal to take him back as a member of the complement
of th
 e ship, Bul-an was forced to seek help from the Philippine Embassy at Barcelona,
Spain. He was left with no other recourse but to return to the Philippines and later
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of back wages, as well
as actual, moral and exemplary damages against the petitioners.
o Complaint alleged that due to the Captains refusal to accept him upon his
return to the ship, he was forced to return to the Philippines. He immediately
reported the matter to the petitioners, but instead of receiving assistance, he
was even scolded for returning home.
o Thus, he sent two letters to the petitioners demanding the payment of his
wages but his demands were not acted upon, he was constrained to file the
case for illegal dismissal.
 Seastar’s Position: Bul-an was psychologically ill and was dismissed for a justified
and lawful cause. (Below basically states that Bul-an had an unusual behavior, was
uncooperative: read on if you want details)
o Averred that even only after a few days of boarding the M/V Blue Topaz, Bul-
an already showed unusual behavior. He not only refused to obey orders from
his superior officers; he also refused to work, spending working hours in his
cabin, and totally alienated himself from the rest of the complement of the
ship, inclusive of its master and officers.
o Thus: His actuation or manifestation of himself as the Captain, who is part
owner of the vessel, described him, complainant is just like he lost his
common sense. At the beginning, that is, after about a week on board, he
confronted the Master of the vessel and told him that the vessel was too small
for him and too many work. Just the same, he was told by the Master that he
still have to stay your tour. Bul-an continues to disobey his master and officers
and behave indifferently as if he is mentally ill.
o While the vessel was anchored at Villanueva, Spain, he abandoned ship and
was not found until he was reported to the local authorities who located him at
Stella Maris Seamans Club. He claimed that because of fear to be killed or
thrown over board by the Chief Officer who is also a Filipino, he abandoned
ship and hid at said Club. Due to the troubles and problems being
 encountered by the Master of the vessel and the crew with complainant, he
was dismissed and repatriated.
Relevant facts now: Focus on the dates
 (November 19, 1997) LA: In favor of Bul-an.
o Dismissed without just cause.
 The allegation that Bul-an was insane was not proven, as such, the
presumption of sanity in favor of Bul-an remained unrebutted.
Furthermore,
 Seastar failed to observe twin requirement of notice and hearing
o The duration of Bul-an’s contract was for 9 months at $350.00 (approximately
P9,100.00). Since his services were unjustly terminated only after 2 months of
employment, without his wages having been paid, he is entitled to the full
reimbursement of the placement fee with interest at 12% per annum, plus
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for 3 months
for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, conformably to Section
10, paragraph 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant
Workers Act.
o Citing Reta v. NLRC, awarded actual damages for failure to observe due
process.
o Citing Maglutac v NLRC, moral and exemplary damages, including attorney’s
were also awarded.
o Seastar, as the private employment agency, is jointly and solidarily liable with
its foreign principal, conformably to the ruling of the Court in Catan v. NLRC.
 Seastar assailed the decision before NLRC.
 (September 15, 1998) NLRC: In favor of Bul-an. Dismissed Seastar’s appeal for
lack of merit.
o Under the facts and circumstances, Bul-an could not have been said to have
abandoned or resigned from work.
o Conclusion was that he was illegally dismissed and entitled to receive the
money award given by the labor arbiter.
o Findings of fact of the labor arbiter are entitled to great respect and are
generally binding on the Commission, as long as they are substantially
supported by the established facts and evidence on record, as well as the
applicable law and jurisprudence, and that in this case, the labor arbiter
committed no grave abuse of discretion.
 (January 12, 1999) Seastar’s MR denied by NLRC for lack of merit in a resolution.
 (April 14, 2000) Seastar filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65
before CA.
 (April 29, 1999) CA: Dismissed petition for review
o Dismissed because Seastar failed to allege the date when they filed their MR.
Hence, no way of ascertaining the timeliness of the filing of their petition.
 Seastar filed an MR with Prayer for Leave to Admit amended petition which was
denied by CA.
 Seastar appeals before SC via petition for review.
Petition of Seastar before SC: Nullify CA’s resolution dismissing their petition on purely
technical grounds
 They begged for leave to file an amended petition indicating date of filing of their
MR.
 They substantially complied with Sections 3 and 5 of Rule 46 since their MR of
NLRC decision was attached in their petition as Annex B.
 Evangelista v. Mendoza: Annexes which are attached to the pleading are to be read
and considered as a part thereof, and as such, the the timeliness of the filing of the
petition for certiorari may easily be determined from the petition itself.
 In any case, the timeliness of the filing of the petition should be reckoned from the
date of official receipt of a copy of the resolution of the NLRC denying their
motion for reconsideration, or on April 28, 1999.
RULING: Instant petition DENIED.
Whether Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioners petition under Rule
65 on the ground of Seastar’s failure to indicate the date of receipt of the
Resolution of the NLRC denying their motion for reconsideration in the petition
before the CA –
 3 essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (Santos
v. CA)
1. Date when notice of the judgment or final order or Resolution was received;
2. Date when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed;
3. Date when notice of the denial thereof was received.
 Rationale: To determine its timeliness.
o Such a petition is required to be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the
judgment, order or Resolution sought to be assailed. Therefore, that the
petition for certiorari was filed 41 days from receipt of the denial of the
motion for reconsideration is hardly relevant. The Court of Appeals was not in
any position to determine when this period commenced to run and whether
the motion for reconsideration itself was filed on time since the material dates
were not stated.
o It should not be assumed that in no event would the motion be filed later than
15 days. Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of
justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly
disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.
Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the
policy of liberal construction.
 Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same
must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.
o In this case, the petitioners aver that they received the resolution of the NLRC
dated January 12, 1999 denying their motion for reconsideration only on April
 28, 1999, the date the NLRC officially furnished petitioners a copy of said
resolution as evidenced by a certified true copy issued by the NLRC.
o However, in their petition before the appellate court, the petitioners made the
admission that they, on 15 February 1999, through undersigned counsel,
officially received the same.
o It is settled that a judicial admission is binding on the person who makes it,
and absent any showing that it was made through palpable mistake, no amount
of rationalization can offset such admission.
o Thus, Court cannot countenance nor consider the petitioners claim of actual
receipt of the copy of the NLRC resolution on an altogether different date
without even an explanation therefor.
 Even if we check the MR attached to the petition (that they filed their MR of the
NLRC decision on December 10, 1998) – Still, their petition is dismissible as it was
filed 5 days late.
 We cannot accept the contention that they received copy of the NLRC resolution
dated January 12, 1999 only on April 28, 1999 since the instant petition for
certiorari was filed earlier or on April 14, 1999.
o This is an absurd situation where the petition assailing the NLRC resolution
was filed even before they received a copy thereof