Seastar Marine Services, Inc. v.

Bul-an
November 25, 2004

Petitioners: Seastar Marine Services, Inc. and Cicero Malunda

Respondents: NLRC and Lucio Bul-an

Callejo, Sr., J.:

Facts:
 Respondent Lucio was hired by petitioner Seastar for and in behalf of its foreign principal, H.S.S. Holland Ship Service,
on board M/V Blue Topaz. The respondent was to receive a monthly salary of $350.00 for 9 months and would be
working 48 hours per week. The employment contract was approved by the POEA on April 1995, signed by
respondent and Seastar President Cicero.
 June 1995 – Chief Mate Benjamin Paruginog mauled Lucio, causing arm and physical injuries, while on board the ship.
Lucio reported the matter to Master Captain Stumpe Luitje Jacobus, who assured the former that it shall be settled.
 But instead, Jacobus reported and wrote to his superiors at Topaz Seal Shipping Company that Lucio was
uncooperative, refused to obey his orders, and often pretended to be ill to be free of duty. Jacobus wanted to have
Lucio relieved of his job. This letter was countersigned by several crew members, including Paruginog. Jacobus
likewise wrote to Cicero reiterating his complaints about Lucio.
 Because of the Captain’s refusal to take Lucio back as a member of the ship, he was left with no other recourse but to
return to the Philippines. Thereafter, Lucio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He reported the matter to Seastar,
but the latter even scolded him for returning home. Lucio now demands for payment of his wages.
 Seastar, for its part, alleges the Lucio was psychologically ill and was dismissed for a justified and lawful cause, that he
showed unusual behaviour, totally alienating himself from the rest of the crew while aboard the ship. Lucio was even
accused of abandoning ship.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled for Lucio, adjudicating payment of unpaid salaries and damages. According to the former,
Lucio was dismissed without just cause and petitioner failed to prove its allegation of insanity. Further, petitioner
failed to observe the twin requirement of notice and hearing. It held Seastar jointly and severally liable with its
foreign principal, H.S.S. Holland.
 Petitioners brought the matter before the NLRC, but the latter dismissed it. Petitioners’ MfR was likewise denied.
 Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC before the CA. However, it was
dismissed for failure of the petitioner to allege the date when they filed their MfR of the resolution of the NLRC
dismissing their petition.
 Hence, this petition for review.

Issue/Holding:
WON the CA erred in dismissing the petitioners’ petition under Rule 65 of the ROC on the ground of the petitioners’ failure to
indicate the date of receipt of the Resolution of the NLRC denying their MfR in the petition before the appellate court.
PETITION HAS NO MERIT. CA WAS CORRECT IN DISMISSING.

Ratio:
 It must be stressed that certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must
strictly observe the rules laid down by law. The bottom line is petitioners were 5 days late in filing their petition.

Important part of the case! (Hearing: use of position paper)

 The petitioners were alleging that NLRC had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it upheld the labor
arbiter’s ruling. According to petitioners, it was incumbent upon the NLRC to remand the case to the labor arbiter to
properly address the material and factual issues. Respondent counters this by saying that Sec. 4, Rule V of the New
Rules of Procedure provides that it is the labor arbiter who is authorized to determine whether or not there is a
necessity for conducting formal hearings in cases brought before them for adjudication even after the submission of
the parties of their position papers or memoranda.
 The court agrees with the respondent. A formal trial-type hearing is not at all times in all instances essential to due
process. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of
the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based. In fact, Rule V of the Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, outlines the procedure to be followed in cases before the labor arbiter, as
follows:
Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum. –

Should the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in whole or in part, during the
conferences, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order stating therein the matters taken up and agreed upon
during the conferences and directing the parties to simultaneously file their respective verified position
papers.

Section 4. Determination of Necessity of Hearing. – Immediately after the submission by the parties of their
position papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall motu proprio determine whether there is a need for a
formal trial or hearing. At this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making such
determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to
the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence, if any from any party or witness.

Section 5. Period to Decide Case. – (a) Should the Labor Arbiter find it necessary to conduct a hearing, he
shall issue an order to that effect setting the date or dates for the same which shall be determined within
ninety (90) days from initial hearing.

He shall render his decision within thirty (30) calendar days, without extension, after the submission of the
case by the parties for decision, even in the absence of stenographic notes: Provided, however, that OFW
cases shall be decided within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint and the acquisition
by the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over the parties.

(b) If the Labor Arbiter finds no necessity of further hearing after the parties have submitted their position
papers and supporting documents, he shall issue an Order to that effect and shall inform the parties, stating
the reasons therefore. In any event, he shall render his decision in the case within the same period provided
in paragraph (a) hereof.