G.R. No. 175558. February 8, 2012.

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. and SKIPPERS MARITIME SERVICES, INC., LTD.,
petitioners,  vs.  NATHANIEL DOZA, NAPOLEON DE GRACIA, ISIDRO L. LATA, and
CHARLIE APROSTA, respondents.

Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Two-Notice Rule; The employer must furnish the employee
with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises
the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second
notice informs the em-

_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

413

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 413

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

ployee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.—For a worker’s dismissal to be considered valid, it
must comply with both procedural and substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal
constitutes procedural due process, while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes substantive due
process. Procedural due process in dismissal cases consists of the twin requirements of notice and
hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of
employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions
for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second notice informs the employee of the employer’s
decision to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the second notice, the requirement of a hearing must be
complied with by giving the worker an opportunity to be heard. It is not necessary that an actual hearing
be conducted. Substantive due process, on the other hand, requires that dismissal by the employer be
made under a just or authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code.
Same; Seafarers; Resignation; Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of
the employment contract by “serving written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.” In
the absence of a written resignation, it is safe to presume that the employer terminated the seafarers.—
Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of the employment contract by
“serving written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.” Given that provision, the law
contemplates the requirement of a written notice of resignation. In the absence of a written resignation,
it is safe to presume that the employer terminated the seafarers. In addition, the telex message relied
upon by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC bore conflicting dates of 22 January 1998 and 22 January 1999,
giving doubt to the veracity and authenticity of the document. In 22 January 1998, De Gracia, et al. were
not even employed yet by the foreign principal. For these reasons, the dismissal of De Gracia, et al. was
illegal.
Same; Same; Home Allotment Pay; The seafarer is required to make an allotment of at least 80% of
the seafarer’s salary which is payable once a month to his designated allottee in the Philippines through
any authorized Philippine bank.—On the issue of home allotment pay, Skippers effectively admitted non-
remittance of home allotment pay for the month of December 1998 in its Position Paper.

414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
 Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

Skippers sought the repatriation expenses to be offset with the home allotment pay. However, since
De Gracia, et al.’s dismissal was illegal, their repatriation expenses were for the account of Skippers and
could not be offset with the home allotment pay. Contrary to the claim of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
that the home allotment pay is in “the nature of extraordinary money where the burden of proof is
shifted to the worker who must prove he is entitled to such monetary benefit,” Section 8 of POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996, states that the allotment actually constitutes  at least
eighty percent (80%) of the seafarer’s salary: The seafarer is required to make an allotment which is
payable once a month to his designated allottee in the Philippines through any authorized Philippine
bank. The master/employer/agency shall provide the seafarer with facilities to do so at no expense to the
seafarer. The allotment shall be at least eighty percent (80%) of the seafarer’s monthly basic salary
including backwages, if any. (Emphasis supplied)
Same; Same; Migrant Workers Act; The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the unexpired
portion of the employment contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less, shall be awarded to the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal dismissal. However, in 24 March
2009, Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc., the Court, in an En Banc
Decision, declared unconstitutional the clause “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less” and awarded the entire unexpired portion of the employment contract to the overseas
Filipino worker.—Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) provides for money claims
in cases of unjust termination of employment contracts: 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. The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the unexpired
portion of the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less, shall be awarded to the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal dismissal. However, in 24 March
2009, Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the
Court, in an En Banc Decision, declared un-

415

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 415

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

constitutional the clause “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”
and awarded the entire unexpired portion of the employment contract to the overseas Filipino worker.
Same; Same; Same; On 8 March 2010, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 (RA 10022) amended
Section 10 of the Migrant Workers Act, and once again reiterated the provision of awarding the unexpired
portion of the employment contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less.—On 8 March 2010, however, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 (RA 10022) amended Section 10 of
the Migrant Workers Act, and once again reiterated the provision of awarding the unexpired portion of
the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
Nevertheless, since the termination occurred on January 1999 before the passage of the amendatory RA
10022, we shall apply RA 8042, as unamended, without touching on the constitutionality of Section 7 of
RA 10022. The declaration in March 2009 of the unconstitutionality of the clause “or for three months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” in RA 8042 shall be given retroactive effect to the
termination that occurred in January 1999 because an unconstitutional clause in the law confers no
rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. The unconstitutional provision is inoperative, as if it
was not passed into law at all.
Same; Damages; Moral Damages; Instances where Moral Damages may be Recovered.—Article 2219
of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides for recovery of moral damages in certain cases: Art. 2219.
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in
physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in
Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The parents
of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover
moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
416

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

Same; Same; Exemplary Damages; Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example
or  correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.—Article 2229 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, provides for recovery of exemplary
damages: Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for
the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Same; Same; Attorney’s Fees; Article 111 of the Labor Code provides for a maximum award of
attorney’s fees in cases of recovery of wages.—Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides for recovery of
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation: Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary
damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate
with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious
prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the
plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s
plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of
wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s
compensation and employer’s liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising
from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court
deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all
cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. Article 111 of the Labor Code
provides for a maximum award of attorney’s fees in cases of recovery of wages: Art. 111. Attorney’s fees. a.
In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent
to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered. b. It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or
accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney’s fees which
exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
417

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 417

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

  Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma andCarbonell for petitioners.
  Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Offices for respondents.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case
 This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing the 5 July 2006 Decision1  and 7
November 2006 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88148.3
This arose from consolidated labor case4 filed by seafarers Napoleon De Gracia (De Gracia),
Isidro L. Lata (Lata), Charlie Aprosta (Aprosta), and Nathaniel Doza (Doza) against local
manning agency Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and its foreign principal, Skippers Maritime
Services, Inc., Ltd. (Skippers) for unremitted home allotment for the month of December 1998,
salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, moral damages, exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees. Skippers, on the other hand, answered with a claim for
reimbursement of De Gracia, Aprosta and Lata’s repatriation expenses, as well as award of
moral damages and attorney’s fees.

_______________
1  Rollo, pp. 31-40. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Supreme Court Justice) with
Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid concurring.
2 Id., at p. 41. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Supreme Court Justice) with Associate
Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 11-29.
4 CA Rollo, p. 77.

418

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

De Gracia, Lata, Aprosta and Doza’s (De Gracia, et al.) claims were dismissed by the Labor
Arbiter for lack of merit.5 The Labor Arbiter also dismissed Skippers’ claims.6De Gracia, et al.
appealed7 the Labor Arbiter’s decision with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
but the First Division of the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.8  Doza,  et al.’s
Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the NLRC,9  so they filed a Petition
for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).10
The CA granted the petition, reversed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decisions, and awarded
to De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta their unremitted home allotment, three months salary each
representing the unexpired portion of their employment contracts and attorney’s fees.11  No
award was given to Doza for lack of factual basis.12 The CA denied Skippers’ Motion for Partial
Reconsideration.13 Hence, this Petition.

The Facts

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. deployed, in behalf of Skippers, De Gracia, Lata, and Aprosta
to work on board the vessel MV Wisdom Star, under the following terms and conditions:

Name:                                   Napoleon O. De Gracia

      Position:                                 3rd Engineer
      Contract Duration:                 10 months
      Basic Monthly Salary:            US$800.00

_______________
5  Id., at p. 81.
6  Id.
7  Id., at pp. 82-95.
8  Id., at pp. 126-131.
9  Id., at pp. 132-134.
10 Id., at pp. 1-24.
11 Rollo, pp. 31-40.
12 Id., at p. 38.
13 Id., at p. 41.

419
 VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 419
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

Contract Date:                       17 July 199814

       Name:                                   Isidro L. Lata

       Position:                                4th Engineer
       Contract Duration:                 12 months
       Basic Monthly Salary:            US$600.00
       Contract Date:                       17 April 199815
Name:                                    Charlie A. Aprosta
       Position:                                 Third Officer
      Contract Duration:                   12 months
      Basic Monthly Salary:              US$600.00
      Contract Date:                       17 April 199816

Paragraph 2 of all the employment contracts stated that: “The terms and conditions of the
Revised Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Seafarers approved per
Department Order No. 33 and Memorandum Circular No. 55, both series of 1996 shall be
strictly and faithfully observed.”17 No employment contract was submitted for Nathaniel Doza.
De Gracia, et al. claimed that Skippers failed to remit their respective allotments for almost
five months, compelling them to air their grievances with the Romanian Seafarers Free
Union.18 On 16 December 1998, ITF Inspector Adrian Mihalcioiu of the Romanian Seafarers
Union sent Captain Savvas of Cosmos Shipping a fax letter, relaying the complaints of his
crew, namely: home allotment delay, unpaid salaries (only advances), late provisions, lack of
laundry services (only one washing machine), and lack of maintenance of the vessel
(perforated and unrepaired deck).19 To date, however, Skip-

_______________
14 CA Rollo, p. 60.
15 Id., at p. 61.
16 Id., at p. 62.
17 Id., at pp. 60-62.
18 Id., at p. 50.
19 Id., at p. 63.

420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

pers only failed to remit the home allotment for the month of December 1998.20 On 28 January
1999, De Gracia,  et al. were unceremoniously discharged from MV Wisdom Stars and
immediately repatriated.21 Upon arrival in the Philippines, De Gracia, et al. filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter on 4 April 1999 and prayed for payment of their
home allotment for the month of December 1998, salaries for the unexpired portion of their
contracts, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.22
Skippers, on the other hand, claims that at around 2:00 a.m. on 3 December 1998, De
Gracia, smelling strongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of Gabriel Oleszek, Master of MV
Wisdom Stars, and was rude, shouting noisily to the master.23  De Gracia left the master’s
cabin after a few minutes and was heard shouting very loudly somewhere down the
corridors.24 This incident was evidenced by the Captain’s Report sent via telex to Skippers on
said date.25
Skippers also claims that at 12:00 noon on 22 January 1999, four Filipino seafarers, namely
Aprosta, De Gracia, Lata and Doza, arrived in the master’s cabin and demanded immediate
repatriation because they were not satisfied with the ship.26 De Gracia, et al. threatened that
they may become crazy any moment and demanded for all outstanding payments due to
them.27  This is evidenced by a telex of Cosmoship MV Wisdom to Skippers, which however
bears conflicting dates of 22 January 1998 and 22 January 1999.28

_______________
20 Id., at p. 48.
21 Id., at p. 50.
22 Id., at p. 57.
23 Id., at p. 65.
24 Id.
25 Id., at p. 73.
26 Id., at p. 65.
27 Id., at p. 74.
28 Id.

421

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 421

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

Skippers also claims that, due to the disembarkation of De Gracia, et al., 17 other seafarers
disembarked under abnormal circumstances.29  For this reason, it was suggested that Polish
seafarers be utilized instead of Filipino seamen.30  This is again evidenced by a fax of
Cosmoship MV Wisdom to Skippers, which bears conflicting dates of 24 January 1998 and 24
January 1999.31
Skippers, in its Position Paper, admitted non-payment of home allotment for the month of
December 1998, but prayed for the offsetting of such amount with the repatriation expenses in
the following manner:32

Seafarer Repatriation Home Balance

Expense Allotment
De US$1,340.00 US$900.00 US$440.00
Gracia
Aprosta US$1,340.00 US$600.00 US$740.00
Lata US$1,340.00 US$600.00 US$740.00

 Since De Gracia, et al. pre-terminated their contracts, Skippers claims they are liable for
their repatriation expenses33  in accordance with Section 19(G) of Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996 which
states:
G. A seaman who requests for early termination of his contract shall be liable for his repatriation cost as
well as the transportation cost of his replacement. The employer may, in case of compassionate

_______________
29 Id., at p. 75.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id., at p. 68.
33 Id.

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza
grounds, assume the transportation cost of the seafarer’s replacement.

Skippers also prayed for payment of moral damages and attorney’s fees.34

The Decision of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision on 18 February 2002, with its dispositive portion
declaring:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing herein action for lack of merit. Respondents’
claim for reimbursement of the expenses they incurred in the repatriation of complainant Nathaniel
Doza is likewise dismissed.
SO ORDERED.”35

The Labor Arbiter dismissed De Gracia, et al.’s complaint for illegal dismissal because the
seafarers voluntarily pre-terminated their employment contracts by demanding for immediate
repatriation due to dissatisfaction with the ship.36 The Labor Arbiter held that such voluntary
pre-termination of employment contract is akin to resignation,37  a form of termination by
employee of his employment contract under Article 285 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter
gave weight and credibility to the telex of the master of the vessel to Skippers, claiming that
De Gracia,  et al. demanded for immediate repatriation.38Due to the absence of illegal
dismissal, De Gracia,  et al.’sclaim for salaries representing the unexpired portion of their
employment contracts was dismissed.39

_______________
34 Id., at p. 70.
35 Id., at p. 81.
36 Id., at p. 80.
37 Id., at p. 79.
38 Id., at p. 80.
39 Id., at p. 81.

423

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 423

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

The Labor Arbiter also dismissed De Gracia et al.’s claim for home allotment for December
1998.40  The Labor Arbiter explained that payment for home allotment is “in the nature of
extraordinary money where the burden of proof is shifted to the worker who must prove he is
entitled to such monetary benefit.”41  Since De Gracia,  et al.  were not able to prove their
entitlement to home allotment, such claim was dismissed.42
Lastly, Skippers’ claim for reimbursement of repatriation expenses was likewise denied,
since Article 19(G) of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996 allows the employer,
in case the seafarer voluntarily pre-terminates his contract, to assume the repatriation cost of
the seafarer on compassionate grounds.43
The Decision of the NLRC
The NLRC, on 28 October 2002, dismissed De Gracia, et al.’s appeal for lack of merit and
affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.44  The NLRC considered De Gracia,  et al.’s claim for
home allotment for December 1998 unsubstantiated, since home allotment is a benefit which
De Gracia, et al. must prove their entitlement to.45 The NLRC also denied the claim for illegal
dismissal because De Gracia, et al. were not able to refute the telex received by Skippers from
the vessel’s master that De Gracia,  et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts and
demanded immediate repatriation due to their dissatisfaction with the ship’s operations.46
 _______________
40 Id.
41 Id., at p. 80.
42 Id., at pp. 80-81.
43 Id., at p. 81.
44 Id., at p. 131.
45 Id., at p. 130.
46 Id.

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

The CA, on 5 July 2006, granted De Gracia, et al.’s petition and reversed the decisions of
the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, its dispositive portion reading as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition for  certiorari  is GRANTED. The Resolution dated October 28,
2002 and the Order dated August 31, 2004 rendered by the public respondent NLRC are ANNULLED
and SET ASIDE. Let another judgment be entered holding private respondents jointly and severally
liable to petitioners for the payment of:
1) Unremitted home allotment pay for the month of December, 1998 or the equivalent thereof in
Philippine pesos:
a. De Gracia = US$900.00
b. Lata = US$600.00
c. Aprosta = US$600.00
2) Salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for 3 months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less, or the equivalent thereof in Philippine pesos:
a. De Gracia = US$2,400.00
b. Lata = US$1,800.00
c. Aprosta = US$1,800.00
3. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses equivalent to 10% of the total claims.
SO ORDERED.”47

The CA declared the Labor Arbiter and NLRC to have committed grave abuse of discretion
when they relied upon the telex message of the captain of the vessel stating that De Gracia, et
al.  voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts and demanded immediate repatriation.48  The
telex message was “a self-serving document that does not satisfy the requirement of
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence

_______________
47 Rollo, pp. 39-40.
48 Id., at p. 36.

425

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 425

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion that petitioners
indeed voluntarily demanded their immediate repatriation.”49 For this reason, the repatriation
of De Gracia,  et al.  prior to the expiration of their contracts showed they were illegally
dismissed from employment.50
In addition, the failure to remit home allotment pay was effectively admitted by Skippers,
and prayed to be offset from the repatriation expenses.51  Since there is no proof that De
Gracia, et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts, the repatriation expenses are for the
account of Skippers, and cannot be offset with the home allotment pay for December 1998.52
No relief was granted to Doza due to lack of factual basis to support his
petition.53 Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total claims was granted since it involved
an action for recovery of wages or where the employee was forced to litigate and incur
expenses to protect his rights and interest.54

The Issues

Skippers, in its Petition for Review on Certiorari, assigned the following errors in the CA
Decision:
a) The Court of Appeals seriously erred in not giving due credence to the master’s telex message
showing that the respondents voluntarily requested to be repatriated.
b) The Court of Appeals seriously erred in finding petitioners liable to pay backwages and the alleged
unremitted home allotment pay despite the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the claims
are baseless.

_______________
49 Id.
50 Id., at p. 37.
51 Id., at p. 38.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Id., at p. 39.

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

c) The Court of Appeals seriously erred in awarding attorney’s fees in favor of respondents despite its
findings that the facts attending in this case do not support the claim for moral and exemplary
damages.55

The Ruling of this Court

We deny the petition and affirm the CA Decision, but modify the award.
For a worker’s dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both procedural and
substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes procedural due
process, while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes substantive due process.56
Procedural due process in dismissal cases consists of the twin requirements of notice and
hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the
termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second notice
informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the
second notice, the requirement of a hearing must be complied with by giving the worker an
opportunity to be heard. It is not necessary that an actual hearing be conducted.57
Substantive due process, on the other hand, requires that dismissal by the employer be
made under a just or authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code.

_______________
55 Id., at p. 19.
56 Quirico Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies and/or Marlito Uy,G.R. No. 191008, 11 April 2011, 647 SCRA 568,
citing Tirazona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169712, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 560.
57  New Puerto Commercial v. Lopez, G.R. No. 169999, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 422, citing  Solid Development
Corporation Workers Association (SDCWA-UWP) v. Solid Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165995, 14 August 2007,
530 SCRA 132, 140-141.
 427

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 427

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

In this case, there was no written notice furnished to De Gracia, et al. regarding the cause
of their dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written notice (telex) to Skippers, the local manning
agency, claiming that De Gracia,  et al. were repatriated because the latter voluntarily pre-
terminated their contracts. This telex was given credibility and weight by the Labor Arbiter
and NLRC in deciding that there was pre-termination of the employment contract “akin to
resignation” and no illegal dismissal. However, as correctly ruled by the CA, the telex message
is “a biased and self-serving document that does not satisfy the requirement of substantial
evidence.” If, indeed, De Gracia,  et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts, then De
Gracia, et al. should have submitted their written resignations.
Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of the employment
contract by “serving written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.” Given
that provision, the law contemplates the requirement of a written notice of resignation. In the
absence of a written resignation, it is safe to presume that the employer terminated the
seafarers. In addition, the telex message relied upon by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC bore
conflicting dates of 22 January 1998 and 22 January 1999, giving doubt to the veracity and
authenticity of the document. In 22 January 1998, De Gracia, et al. were not even employed
yet by the foreign principal. For these reasons, the dismissal of De Gracia, et al. was illegal.
On the issue of home allotment pay, Skippers effectively admitted non-remittance of home
allotment pay for the month of December 1998 in its Position Paper. Skippers sought the
repatriation expenses to be offset with the home allotment pay. However, since De Gracia, et
al.’s dismissal was illegal, their repatriation expenses were for the account of Skippers and
could not be offset with the home allotment pay.
Contrary to the claim of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that the home allotment pay is in
“the nature of extraordinary
428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

money where the burden of proof is shifted to the worker who must prove he is entitled to such
monetary benefit,” Section 8 of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996, states
that the allotment actually constitutes  at least eighty percent (80%) of the seafarer’s
salary:

The seafarer is required to make an allotment which is payable once a month to his designated allottee
in the Philippines through any authorized Philippine bank. The master/employer/agency shall provide
the seafarer with facilities to do so at no expense to the seafarer. The allotment shall be at least eighty
percent (80%) of the seafarer’s monthly basic salary including backwages, if any. (Emphasis supplied)

Paragraph 2 of the employment contracts of De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta incorporated the
provisions of above Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996, in the employment contracts.
Since said memorandum states that home allotment of seafarers actually constitutes at least
eighty percent (80%) of their salary, home allotment pay is not in the nature of an
extraordinary money or benefit, but should actually be considered as salary which should be
paid for services rendered. For this reason, such non-remittance of home allotment pay should
be considered as unpaid salaries, and Skippers shall be liable to pay the home allotment pay of
De Gracia, et al. for the month of December 1998.
 Damages

As admitted by Skippers in its Position Paper, the home allotment pay for December 1998
due to De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta is:
Seafarer Home Allotment Pay
De Gracia US$900.00
Aprosta US$600.00
Lata US$600.00

429

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 429

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

The monthly salary of De Gracia, according to his employment contract, is only US$800.00.
However, since Skippers admitted in its Position Paper a higher home allotment pay for De
Gracia, we award the higher amount of home allotment pay for De Gracia in the amount of
US$900.00. Since the home allotment pay can be considered as unpaid salaries, the peso
equivalent of the dollar amount should be computed using the prevailing rate at the time of
termination since it was due and demandable to De Gracia, et al. on 28 January 1999.
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) provides for money claims in
cases of unjust termination of employment contracts:
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.

The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the unexpired portion of the employent
contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, shall be
awarded to the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal dismissal. However, in 24 March
2009, Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,58 the Court, in
an En Banc Decision, declared unconstitutional the clause “or for three months for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is less” and awarded the entire unexpired portion of the
employment contract to the overseas Filipino worker.
On 8 March 2010, however, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 (RA 10022) amended
Section 10 of the Migrant Workers Act, and once again reiterated the provision of awarding

_______________
58 G.R. No. 167614, 24 March 2009, 582 SCRA 254.

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

the unexpired portion of the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less.
Nevertheless, since the termination occurred on January 1999 before the passage of the
amendatory RA 10022, we shall apply RA 8042, as unamended, without touching on the
constitutionality of Section 7 of RA 10022.
The declaration in March 2009 of the unconstitutionality of the clause “or for three months
for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” in RA 8042 shall be given retroactive
effect to the termination that occurred in January 1999 because an unconstitutional clause in
the law confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. The unconstitutional
provision is inoperative, as if it was not passed into law at all.59
As such, we compute the claims as follows:

Seafarer Contract Contract Repatriation Unexpired Monthly Total

Term Date Date Term Salary Claims
De 10 17 Jul. 28 Jan. 3 months US$800 US$2933.34
Gracia months 1998 1999 & 20 days
Lata 12 17 Apr. 28 Jan. 2 months US$600 US$1600
months 1998 1999 & 20 days
Aprosta 12 17 Apr. 28 Jan. 2 months US$600 US$1600
months 1998 1999 & 20 days

Given the above computation, we modify the CA’s imposition of award, and grant to De
Gracia, et al. salaries representing the unexpired portion of their contracts, instead of salaries
for three (3) months.

_______________
59 Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 179532, 30 May 2011,
649 SCRA 369.

431

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 431

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides for recovery of moral damages in
certain cases:

“Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover
moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this
article, in the order named.”

Article 2229 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, provides for recovery of exemplary
damages:
“Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.”

In this case, we agree with the CA in not awarding moral and exemplary damages for lack
of factual basis.
Lastly, Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides for recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation:
432
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

“Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons
or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.”

Article 111 of the Labor Code provides for a maximum award of attorney’s fees in cases of
recovery of wages:

“Art. 111. Attorney’s fees.

a. In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees
equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
433

b. It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings
for the recovery of wages, attorney’s fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.”

Since De Gracia,  et al. had to secure the services of the lawyer to recover their unpaid
salaries and protect their interest, we agree with the CA’s imposition of attorney’s fees in the
amount of ten percent (10%) of the total claims.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 5 July 2006 with
MODIFICATION. Petitioners Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Skippers Maritime Services
Inc., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable for payment of the following:

1) Unremitted home allotment pay for the month of December 1998 in its equivalent rate in Philippine Pesos at
the time of termination on 28 January 1999:
a. De Gracia = US$900.00
b. Lata = US$600.00
c. Aprosta = US$600.00
2) Salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or its current equivalent in Philippine Pesos:
a. De Gracia = US$2,933.34
b. Lata = US$1,600.00
c. Aprosta = US$1,600.00
3) Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses equivalent to 10% of the total claims.”

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Perez, Sereno and Reyes, JJ., concur. 

434

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza

 Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.— We hsve already declared in Serrano that the clause "or for three months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" provided in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of
R.S. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of Overseas Filipino Workers
(OFW's) to equal protection of the law (Yap vs. Thenamaris Ship's Management,  649 SCRA
369 [2011])
For the seaman's claim to prosper, however, it is mandatory that he should be examined by
a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation. (Coastal Safeway
Marine Services, Inc. vs. Esguerra, 655 SCRA 300 [2011]) 
 ——o0o——