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

Mercidar Fishing Corporation vs. NLRC

Fermin Agao Jr. filed a complaint against Mercidar Fishing Corp. for illegal dismissal, violation of labor laws, and non-payment of service incentive leave pay. Agao had worked as a ship's quartermaster but claimed he was constructively dismissed when denied assignments after taking approved leave. Mercidar claimed Agao abandoned his work. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Agao, ordering reinstatement and back wages. The NLRC dismissed Mercidar's appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's ruling that fishing crew are entitled to service incentive leave pay, as they remain under the effective control of the fishing company throughout their voyages.

Uploaded by

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

Mercidar Fishing Corporation vs. NLRC

Fermin Agao Jr. filed a complaint against Mercidar Fishing Corp. for illegal dismissal, violation of labor laws, and non-payment of service incentive leave pay. Agao had worked as a ship's quartermaster but claimed he was constructively dismissed when denied assignments after taking approved leave. Mercidar claimed Agao abandoned his work. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Agao, ordering reinstatement and back wages. The NLRC dismissed Mercidar's appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's ruling that fishing crew are entitled to service incentive leave pay, as they remain under the effective control of the fishing company throughout their voyages.

Uploaded by

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

MERCIDAR FISHING CORP vs.

NLRC AND AGAO


G.R. No. 112574 October 8, 1998

FACTS:
This case originated from a complaint filed by Fermin Agao, Jr. against petitioner for illegal
dismissal, violation of P.D. No. 851, and non-payment of five days service incentive leave. Fermin Agao,
Jr. had been employed as a “bodegero” or ship’s quartermaster. He complained that he had been
constructively dismissed by petitioner when the latter refused him assignments aboard its boats. He alleged
that he had been sick and thus allowed to go on leave without pay for one month but that when he reported
to work at the end of such period with a health clearance, he was told to come back another time as he
could not be reinstated immediately. Thereafter, petitioner refused to give him work.
Petitioner, on the other hand, alleged that it was private respondent who actually abandoned his
work. It claimed that the latter failed to report for work after his leave had expired and was, in fact, absent
without leave for three months .
Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a decision ordering respondents to reinstate complainant with
backwages, pay him his 13th month pay and incentive leave pay.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The NLRC
dismissed petitioner’s claim that it cannot be held liable for SIL pay by fishermen in its employ as the latter
supposedly are “field personnel” and thus not entitled to such pay under the Labor Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not fishing crew members are considered personnel who have no statutory right to
service incentive leave pay?

HELD:
Fishing crew are entitled to service incentive leave.

Art. 82 of the Labor Code provides “The provisions of this Title [Working Conditions and Rest
Periods] shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or
not, but not to government employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer
who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of
another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in
appropriate regulations.”

“Field personnel” shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties
away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work
in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

In contrast, in the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage, fishermen employed
by petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural
work away from petitioner’s business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work
they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessel’s patron or master as
the NLRC correctly held.

You might also like