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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Dacut vs. CA, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Xavier Bataan
    This document summarizes a labor law case from the Philippines Supreme Court regarding claims made by crew members of a shipping vessel. The crew members resigned and claimed they were constructively dismissed, entitled to separation pay, and owed overtime pay and night differentials. The Supreme Court ruled that as crew members who were required to stay onboard, the workers were not entitled to overtime or differentials if they did not actually work overtime or nights. Since the crew members did not provide proof that overtime or night work was performed, their claims were denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Dacut vs. CA, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Xavier Bataan
    48 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a labor law case from the Philippines Supreme Court regarding claims made by crew members of a shipping vessel. The crew members resigned and claimed they were constructively dismissed, entitled to separation pay, and owed overtime pay and night differentials. The Supreme Court ruled that as crew members who were required to stay onboard, the workers were not entitled to overtime or differentials if they did not actually work overtime or nights. Since the crew members did not provide proof that overtime or night work was performed, their claims were denied.

    Original Title

    172. Dacut vs. CA, 2008

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a labor law case from the Philippines Supreme Court regarding claims made by crew members of a shipping vessel. The crew members resigned and claimed they were constructively dismissed, entitled to separation pay, and owed overtime pay and night differentials. The Supreme Court ruled that as crew members who were required to stay onboard, the workers were not entitled to overtime or differentials if they did not actually work overtime or nights. Since the crew members did not provide proof that overtime or night work was performed, their claims were denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Dacut vs. CA, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Xavier Bataan
    This document summarizes a labor law case from the Philippines Supreme Court regarding claims made by crew members of a shipping vessel. The crew members resigned and claimed they were constructively dismissed, entitled to separation pay, and owed overtime pay and night differentials. The Supreme Court ruled that as crew members who were required to stay onboard, the workers were not entitled to overtime or differentials if they did not actually work overtime or nights. Since the crew members did not provide proof that overtime or night work was performed, their claims were denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Labor Law I |X.B.K.

    Bataan

    Case: 172. Lazaro Dacut vs. Court of Appeals, 2008


    Topic: Rationale for Prohibition

    DOCTRINE: It could not have been the purpose of our law to require their employers
    to give them overtime pay or night shift differential, even when they are not actually
    working.

    PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

    Lazaro Dacut, Cesario Cajote and others. Sta. Clara International Transport &
    Equipment Corporation (Sta. Clara).

    ACTION SEQUENCE: Plaintiffs sued for ID, underpayment, and non–payment of


    night shift differentials before the LA; LA dismissed; NLRC Affirmed; CA Affirmed;
    hence, this petition before the High Court.

    FACTS: Dacut, Cajote and others were crew members of LCT “Basilisa” owned by
    Sta. Clara. Dacut discovered a hole in the vessel’s engine room. The company had
    the hole patched up with a piece of iron and cement. Despite the repair, Dacut and
    Tungala resigned in July 1999 due to the vessel’s alleged un–seaworthiness. Cajote
    went on leave to undergo eye treatment. Since then, he has incurred several
    unauthorized absences. Fearing that he will be charged as Absent Without Leave
    (AWOL), Cajote resigned in June 1999.

    Dacut and Cajote filed a complaint before the LA for constructive dismissal
    amounting to ID, underpayment, and non–payment of night shift differentials
    claiming that they resigned after Secretary of Personnel Manager told them that they
    will be paid their separation pay if they voluntarily resigned. They also resigned
    because the vessel has become unseaworthy after the company refused to have it
    repaired properly. LA dismissed the complaint reasoning that there was sufficient
    evidence to prove that the vessel was seaworthy. NLRC and CA affirmed the decision
    of LA. Hence, this petition before the SC claiming that the court aquo erred in
    holding that Dacut and others voluntarily resigned and thus not constructively
    dismissed and holding that they are not entitled to monetary claims.

    ISSUE: Whether Dacut, Cajote and others are entitled to monetary claims (overtime
    pay and night differentials).

    RULING: No, they are not entitled to monetary claims. The High Court reasoned that
    as crew members, petitioners were required to stay on board the vessel by the very
    nature of their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular
    compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence allowances when
    required to be on board. It could not have been the purpose of our law to require
    their employers to give them overtime pay or night shift differential, even when they
    are not actually working. Thus, the correct criterion in determining whether they are

    Page 1 of 2
    Labor Law I |X.B.K. Bataan

    entitled to overtime pay or night shift differential is not whether they were on board
    and cannot leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether
    they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours.

    In this case, petitioners failed to submit sufficient proof that overtime and night shift
    work were actually performed to entitle them to the corresponding pay. Hence,
    Dacut, Cajote and others are not entitled to monetary claims.

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The


    Decision dated June 21, 2005 and the Resolution dated August 22, 2005 of the
    Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76096 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like