Larry was hired by the local agent of a Holland Shipping Co. (SMS Inc.) as an Able Seaman on April 26, 1995 with a monthly salary of $350 for nine months. Two days later, after traveling from Manila to Spain where the ship was docked, Larry boarded said ship with a complement composed mostly of Filipinos. Barely two months on the job or on June 15, 1995, he was mauled by the Chief Mate also a Filipino, causing him bodily harm and physical injuries. When he reported the mauling incident to the Captain, the latter assured him that he would settle the matter with the Chief Mate.
But apparently, the Captain relied more on the version of the Chief Mate as he reported to his superiors at the shipping company that Larry was uncooperative, refused to obey his orders and those of the chief officers and often pretended to be ill in order to be free of duty. The Captain expressed his fears of getting into serious trouble with Larry and wanted him relieved. He attached to his report a note counter-signed by several crew members including the Chief Mate that Larry had left without permission on the evening of June 26, at Villanueva, Spain.
It turned out that Larry left because he was again maltreated by the Chief Mate. Since the Captain was out on shore, he decided to immediately leave the boat after the incident. He returned four days later with a priest and a lawyer to talk to the Captain but the latter refused to accept his explanation and sided with the Chief Mate.
Because of the Captain’s refusal to take him back as a member of the ship complement, Larry was forced to seek help from the Philippine Embassy where he executed an affidavit and then returned to Manila on July 4, 1995.
Upon his return he wrote two demand letters to SMS demanding payment of his salary from April to July, 1995. But his demand was not acted upon. He was even scolded for returning home. Apparently SMS relied on the Chief Mate’s letter to it dated August 20, 1995 denying Larry’s accusation and reported about Larry’s unusual behavior since boarding the ship. Then there was also the Captain’s letter to his superiors dated August 21, 1995, reporting about Larry’s work and uncooperative attitude and telling them that he was watching out for Larry as he feared Larry would force the crew "to do something" so that he could get a free ticket home.
Since his demands were not acted upon, Larry was forced to file the case for illegal dismissal against SMS. After submission of their respective position papers where each party reiterated its own versions of what led to Larry’s return to the Philippines, the Labor Arbiter found that under the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case Larry was indeed illegally dismissed and thus awarded him his money claims. On appeal to the NLRC, the latter ruled in favor of Larry and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
SMS said that NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it upheld the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. It argued that NLRC should have remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings considering that the material and factual issues involving the circumstances of Larry’s separation from employment could only be properly addressed and resolved by the Labor Arbiter in a formal hearing. Was SMS correct?
No. The Labor Arbiter enjoys wide discretion in determining whether there is a need for formal hearing in a given case. The case may be decided on the basis of the pleadings and other documentary evidence presented by the parties and by the use of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts without regard to technicalities. A formal trial type hearing is not at all times and 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. This is provided in Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC where the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine whether there is still a need for a formal trial or hearing or for asking clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information (Section 4). In according great respect to the Labor Arbiter’s findings of fact, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion (Seastar etc. vs. Bul-an, Jr. G.R. 142609, November 25, 2004).