Serrano V Gallant Maritime

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, G.R. No.
167614, March 24, 2009 – ELERLENNE
Doctrine:
 Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all members of the labor
sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights
and welfare. To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing
constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity: all monetary
benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of similar category, while all
monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be
denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden
imposed on, others in like circumstances.
 Our present Constitution has gone further in guaranteeing vital social and economic
rights to marginalized groups of society, including labor. Under the policy of social
justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working
class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have
more in law. And the obligation to afford protection to labor is incumbent not only
on the legislative and executive branches but also on the judiciary to translate this
pledge into a living reality. Social justice calls for the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Facts:
For Antonio Serrano (petitioner), a Filipino seafarer, the last clause in the 5th paragraph of
Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042,2 to wit:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. • x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just,
valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the
full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
does not magnify the contributions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) to national
development, but exacerbates the hardships borne by them by unduly limiting their
entitlement in case of illegal dismissal to their lump•sum salary either for the unexpired
portion of their employment contract "or for three months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less" (subject clause). Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the
OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their contract, deprives them of
equal protection and denies them due process.
On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a
downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary
of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be
made 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 on May 26, 1998.
Petitioner's employment contract was for a period of 12 months or from March 19, 1998
up to March 19, 1999, but at the time of his repatriation on May 26, 1998, he had served
only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of
nine (9) months and twenty•three (23) days.
The LA rendered a Decision, declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal and awarding him
monetary benefits.
In awarding petitioner a lump•sum salary of US$8,770.00, the LA based his computation on

the salary period of three months only •• rather than the entire unexpired portion of nine
months and 23 days of petitioner's employment contract • applying the subject clause.
Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to question the
finding of the LA that petitioner was illegally dismissed. Petitioner also appealed to the
NLRC on the sole issue that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of the Court in Triple
Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission that in case of illegal
dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts.
The NLRC modified the LA Decision. The NLRC corrected the LA's computation of the
lump•sum salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the applicable salary rate from
US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No. 8042 "does not provide for the award of
overtime pay, which should be proven to have been actually performed, and for 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.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. His Motion for Reconsideration having
been denied by the CA, petitioner brings his cause to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the subject clause is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
Yes. Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all members of the labor sector,
without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare. To
Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions
translate to economic security and parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed
by workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in
equal degree; none should be denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or
spared the burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.
In Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee Association, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, the constitutionality of a provision in the charter of the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas (BSP), a government financial institution (GFI), was challenged for maintaining
its rank•and•file employees under the Salary Standardization Law (SSL), even when the
rank•and•file employees of other GFIs had been exempted from the SSL by their respective
charters. Finding that the disputed provision contained a suspect classification based on
salary grade, the Court deliberately employed the standard of strict judicial scrutiny in its
review of the constitutionality of said provision. More significantly, it was in this case that
the Court revealed the broad outlines of its judicial philosophy, to wit:
xxx
Our present Constitution has gone further in guaranteeing vital social and economic rights
to marginalized groups of society, including labor. Under the policy of social justice, the law
bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane
justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law. And the
obligation to afford protection to labor is incumbent not only on the legislative and
executive branches but also on the judiciary to translate this pledge into a living reality.
Social justice calls for the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated.
Xxx
Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it
applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the subject
clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, OFWs
at two levels:
First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis•à•vis OFWs
with employment contracts of one year or more;
Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one
year; and Third, OFWs vis•à•vis local workers with fixed•period
employment;
The first category includes OFWs with fixed•period employment contracts of

less than one year; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to their
salaries for the entire unexpired portion of their contract. The second
category consists of OFWs with fixed•period employment contracts of one
year or more; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to monetary award
equivalent to only 3 months of the unexpired portion of their contracts.
The disparity in the treatment of these two groups cannot be discounted. The
disparity becomes more aggravating when the Court takes into account
jurisprudence that, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8042 on July
14, 1995, illegally dismissed OFWs, no matter how long the period of their
employment contracts, were entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired
portions of their contracts.
It is plain that prior to R.A. No. 8042, all OFWs, regardless of contract periods
or the unexpired portions thereof, were treated alike in terms of the
computation of their monetary benefits in case of illegal dismissal. Their
claims were subjected to a uniform rule of computation: their basic salaries
multiplied by the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts.
The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042 introduced a

differentiated rule of computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed
OFWs based on their employment periods, in the process singling out one
category whose contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and
subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their monetary
awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired portion
thereof, whichever is less, but all the while sparing the other category from
such prejudice, simply because the latter's unexpired contracts fall short of
one year.
.

Serrano V Gallant Maritime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serrano V Gallant Maritime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serrano V Gallant Maritime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, G.R. No.

167614, March 24, 2009 – ELERLENNE

In awarding petitioner a lump•sum salary of US$8,770.00, the LA based his computation on

Whether or not the subject clause is unconstitutional.

The first category includes OFWs with fixed•period employment contracts of

The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042 introduced a

You might also like