NAME: Michelle C.

Llaneta-Villamora YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: JD-2A

Case No. 25.

Soriano v Offshore Shipping and Manning Corp., et. al.., G.R. No. 78409, 14 Sept. 1989

ISSUE: Does public respondent NLRC erred in ignoring the alterations made by the private
respondent to the employment contract of the petitioner.

ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER (Soriano): Private respondent violated the provisions

laid by Article 34 of the Labor Code by making a hand written alterations in his
employment contract.

ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT (Offshore Shipping and Manning Corp et.al.): The
alterations referred by the petitioner are mere breakdown and clarifications of the
contract, which specified the salary and overtime pay of the petitioner, which he is
entitled to receive. Further, petitioner had misunderstood the amount of compensation
he will receive under the contract.

SC RULING: No. NLRC did not erred in ignoring the alterations.

RATIO: Article 34 of the Labor Code’s purpose is to protect both the worker and the employer.
The alterations made by the private respondent are mere clarifications and
specifications of the salary and overtime pay the petitioner was entitled under the
contract, which the Department of Labor have approved. Therefore, herein private
respondent did not commit any violation of the Code. Further, although it is a rule that
the welfare of the working class should be given utmost consideration, the rights and
interests of the employer should also be given due regard, for if not, it would be unjust
and unacceptable. Moreover, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC
supported by substantial evidence are recognized with finality.

INSTRUCTION LEARNED: It is a general rule that laws should be liberally construed in

such a way as to know the real meaning and intent of its framers. However, such
interpretation should not defeat the very essence for which it were passed. In the
present case, the petitioner narrowly interpreted the provisions of the Labor Code,
which, if favored by the private respondent would go beyond the bounds of reason and
justice.