[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
443 views1 page

Labor Serrano Vs Gallant

Petitioner was hired as Chief Officer but was forced to accept Second Officer upon departure. He refused to stay as Second Officer and was repatriated after two months of a 12-month contract. He filed for constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor but only awarded 3 months salary instead of the remaining 9 months. The NLRC modified the ruling by deducting overtime and leave pay. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of only awarding 3 months pay. The Supreme Court ruled the clause allowing only 3 months pay is unconstitutional and petitioner is entitled to the remaining 9 months and 23 days salary.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
443 views1 page

Labor Serrano Vs Gallant

Petitioner was hired as Chief Officer but was forced to accept Second Officer upon departure. He refused to stay as Second Officer and was repatriated after two months of a 12-month contract. He filed for constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor but only awarded 3 months salary instead of the remaining 9 months. The NLRC modified the ruling by deducting overtime and leave pay. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of only awarding 3 months pay. The Supreme Court ruled the clause allowing only 3 months pay is unconstitutional and petitioner is entitled to the remaining 9 months and 23 days salary.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SERRANO V. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES,INC.

Facts:

Petitioner was hired by the respondents under as POEA- approved contract of employment for 12months,
as Chief Officer. However, on the date of his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a
downgraded employment contract upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would
be Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.

Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make petitioner Chief Officer. Hence, petitioner refused
to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines. He only served for two months.

Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for
payment of his money claims who ruled in favor of him. In awarding petitioner a lump-sum salary, the LA
based his computation on the salary period of three months only — rather than the entire unexpired
portion of nine months. Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to
question the finding of the LA ,that petitioner was illegally dismissed. The NLRC modified the LA Decision,
deducting the award for overtime pay and vacation leave pay.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this time he questioned the constitutionality of
the subject clause. The NLRC denied the motion. The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the
applicable salary rate

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner entitled to his salary for the entire unexpired portion of his 12-month employment contract

Held:

Yes. Petitioner is awarded his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract
consisting of nine months and 23 days computed.

The subject clause “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” in the
5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared unconstitutional. In sum, prior to R.A.
No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term employment who were illegally discharged were
treated alike in terms of the computation of their money claims: they were uniformly entitled to their
salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts.

The subject clause being unconstitutional, petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired
period of nine months and 23 days of his employment contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior
to the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, excluding the overtime and leave pay by reason that it does not form
part of an employee’s salary

You might also like