Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    J-PHIL vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Martin Kevin P. Santiago
    Warlito Dumalaog filed a complaint against J-Phil Marine and others for unpaid wages and damages from injuries sustained while working as a cook aboard vessels. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but the NLRC awarded Dumalaog $50,000 for disability benefits. During the pending case, Dumalaog entered into a compromise agreement with the defendants against the advice of his counsel, signing a quitclaim release for P450,000. The Court upheld the validity of the compromise as Dumalaog had the right to settle without his lawyer's consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    J-PHIL vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Martin Kevin P. Santiago
    62 views2 pages
    Warlito Dumalaog filed a complaint against J-Phil Marine and others for unpaid wages and damages from injuries sustained while working as a cook aboard vessels. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but the NLRC awarded Dumalaog $50,000 for disability benefits. During the pending case, Dumalaog entered into a compromise agreement with the defendants against the advice of his counsel, signing a quitclaim release for P450,000. The Court upheld the validity of the compromise as Dumalaog had the right to settle without his lawyer's consent.

    Original Description:

    Labor Relations

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Warlito Dumalaog filed a complaint against J-Phil Marine and others for unpaid wages and damages from injuries sustained while working as a cook aboard vessels. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but the NLRC awarded Dumalaog $50,000 for disability benefits. During the pending case, Dumalaog entered into a compromise agreement with the defendants against the advice of his counsel, signing a quitclaim release for P450,000. The Court upheld the validity of the compromise as Dumalaog had the right to settle without his lawyer's consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views2 pages

    J-PHIL vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Martin Kevin P. Santiago
    Warlito Dumalaog filed a complaint against J-Phil Marine and others for unpaid wages and damages from injuries sustained while working as a cook aboard vessels. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but the NLRC awarded Dumalaog $50,000 for disability benefits. During the pending case, Dumalaog entered into a compromise agreement with the defendants against the advice of his counsel, signing a quitclaim release for P450,000. The Court upheld the validity of the compromise as Dumalaog had the right to settle without his lawyer's consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    J-PHIL MARINE VS.

    NLRC

    FACTS: Warlito E. Dumalaog (respondent), who served as cook aboard vessels


    plying overseas, filed on before the NLRC a pro-forma complaint against petitioners
    manning agency J-Phil Marine, Inc. (J-Phil), its then president Jesus Candava, and
    its foreign principal Norman Shipping Services for unpaid money claims, moral and
    exemplary damages, and attorneys fees. Respondent thereafter filed two amended
    pro forma complaints praying for the award of overtime pay, vacation leave pay,
    sick leave pay, and disability/medical benefits, he having, by his claim, contracted
    enlargement of the heart and severe thyroid enlargement in the discharge of his
    duties as cook which rendered him disabled. Respondents total claim against
    petitioners was P864,343.30 plus P117,557.60 representing interest and
    P195,928.66 representing attorneys fees
    Labor Arbiter Fe Superiaso-Cellan dismissed respondents complaint for lack of merit.
    the NLRC, by Decision of September 27, 2004, reversed the Labor Arbiters decision
    and awarded US$50,000.00 disability benefit to respondent. It dismissed
    respondents other claims, however, for lack of basis or jurisdiction.
    During the pendency of the case before this Court, respondent, against the advice
    of his counsel, entered into a compromise agreement with petitioners. He thereupon
    signed a Quitclaim and Release subscribed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter.
    The parties having forged a compromise agreement as respondent in fact has
    executed a Quitclaim and Release, the Court dismisses the petition.
    ISSUE: W/N the compromise was validly effected?
    HELD: Yes! bears noting that, as reflected earlier, the Quitclaim and Waiver was
    subscribed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter.
    Respondents counsel nevertheless argues that [t]he amount of Four Hundred Fifty
    Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00) given to respondent on April 4, 2007, as full and final
    settlement of judgment award, is unconscionably low, and un-[C]hristian, to say the
    least. Only respondent, however, can impugn the consideration of the compromise
    as being unconscionable. The relation of attorney and client is in many respects one
    of agency, and the general rules of agency apply to such relation.The acts of an
    agent are deemed the acts of the principal only if the agent acts within the scope of
    his authority. The circumstances of this case indicate that respondents counsel is
    acting beyond the scope of his authority in questioning the compromise agreement.
    That a client has undoubtedly the right to compromise a suit without the
    intervention of his lawyer cannot be gainsaid, the only qualification being that if
    such compromise is entered into with the intent of defrauding the lawyer of the fees
    justly due him, the compromise must be subject to the said fees.

    You might also like