8/11/2019 1) Sulpicio Lines vs. NLRC

1/2

G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996

SULPICIO LINES, INC., petitioner,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AIME CAGATAN, respondents.

!APUNAN, J.:p

Petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., owner of MV Cotabato Princess, on January 15, 1! dis"issed privaterespondent Jai"e Ca#atan, a "ess"an of t$e said vessel, alle#edly for bein# absent wit$out leave for a%prolon#ed% period of si& '() "ont$s.

*s a result of $is dis"issal, t$e private respondent filed a co"plaint for ille#al dis"issal before t$e +ationalLabor elations Co""ission '+LC) t$rou#$ its +ational Capital e#ion *rbitration -ranc$ in Manila,doceted as +LC/+C Case +o. 00/0(/1(/!. 1

espondin# to t$e said co"plaint, petitioner, on June !5, 1!, filed a Motion to 2is"iss on t$e #round ofi"proper venue, statin#, a"on# ot$er t$in#s, t$at t$e case for ille#al dis"issal s$ould $ave been lod#ed wit$t$e +LC3s e#ional -ranc$ +o. VII 'Cebu), as its "ain office was located in Cebu City."

In an 4rder dated *u#ust !1, 1! Labor *rbiter *rt$ur L. *"ansec of t$e +LC/+C denied petitioner3sMotion to 2is"iss, $oldin# t$at

Considerin# t$at t$e co"plainant is a s$ip steward, traveled on board respondent3s s$ip alon#t$e Manila/6nstancia/lloilo/7a"boan#a/Cotabato vice/versa route, Manila Can be said to bepart of t$e co"plainant3s territorial worplace.#

8$e afore9uoted 4rder was seasonably appealed to t$e +LC by petitioner. 4n :ebruary !;, 18?$e co"plainant instituted t$e *ction in Manila w$ere $e resides. @ence, we see no #raveabuse of discretion on t$e part of t$e labor arbiter in denyin# t$e respondent3s Motion to2is"iss as Ae find support in t$e basic principle t$at t$e State s$all afford protection to laborand t$at t$e +LC is not bound by strict tec$nical rules of procedure. 5

Bndaunted, petitioner sou#$t a reconsideration of t$e above 4rder, w$ic$ t$e public respondent denied in itsesolution dated July !!, 1

8/11/2019 1) Sulpicio Lines vs. NLRC

2/2

"ana#e"ent because of t$e principle, para"ount in our urisdiction, t$at t$e State s$all afford full protection tolabor.11

6ven in cases w$ere venue $as been stipulated by t$e parties by contract, t$is Court $as not $esitated to setaside a#ree"ents on venue if t$e sa"e would lead to a situation so #rossly inconvenient to one party as tovirtually ne#ate $is clai". In Sweet Lines vs.Teves,1"involvin# a contract of ad$esion, we $eld t$at

*n a#ree"ent will not be $eld valid w$ere it practically ne#ates t$e action of t$e clai"ants,suc$ as t$e private respondents $erein. 8$e p$ilosop$y underlyin# t$e provisions on transferof venue of actions is t$e convenience of t$e plaintiffs as well as $is witnesses and to pro"otet$e ends of ustice. Considerin# t$e e&pense and trouble a passen#er residin# outside CebuCity would incur to prosecute a clai" in t$e City of Cebu, $e would "ost probably decide notto file t$e action at all. 8$e condition will t$us defeat, instead of en$ance, t$e ends of ustice.Bpon t$e ot$er $and, petitioner $ad branc$es or offices in t$e respective ports of call of t$evessels and can afford to liti#ate in any of t$ese places. @ence, t$e filin# of t$e suit in t$e C:Iof Misa"is 4riental, as was done in t$e instant case will not cause inconvenience to, "uc$less preudice petitioner.1#

In t$e case at benc$, it is not denied t$at w$ile petitioner "aintains its principal office in Cebu City, it retains a"aor booin# and s$ippin# office in Manila fro" w$ic$ it earns considerable revenue, and fro" w$ic$ it $ires

and trains a si#nificant nu"ber of its worforce. Its virulent insistence on $oldin# t$e proceedin#s in t$e +LC3sre#ional arbitration branc$ in Cebu City is obviously a ploy to inconvenience t$e private respondent, a "eresteward w$o resides in Metro Manila, w$o would obviously not be able to afford t$e fre9uent trips to Cebu Cityin order to follow up $is case.

6ven t$e provisions cited by petitioner in support of its contention t$at venue of t$e ille#al dis"issal caselod#ed by private respondent is i"properly laid, would not absolutely support $is clai" t$at respondent +LCacted wit$ #rave abuse of discretion in allowin# t$e private respondent to file $is case wit$ t$e +C arbitrationbranc$.

Section 1, ule IV of t$e +LC ules of Procedure on Venue, provides t$at

Sec. 1. VenueD 'a) *ll cases in w$ic$ Labor *rbiters $ave aut$ority to $ear and

decide maybe filed in t$e e#ional *rbitration -ranc$ $avin# urisdiction t$e worplace of t$eco"plainantEpetitioner.

8$is provision is obviously per"issive, for t$e said section uses t$e word %"ay,% allowin# a different venuew$en t$e interests of substantial ustice de"and a different one. In any case, as stated earlier, t$eConstitutional protection accorded to labor is a para"ount and co"pellin# factor, provided t$e venue c$osen isnot alto#et$er oppressive to t$e e"ployer.

Moreover, Section ule IV of t$e 10 +LC ules additionally provides t$at, %for purposes of venue,worplace s$all be understood as t$e place or locality w$ere t$e e"ployee is re#ularly assi#ned w$en t$ecause of action arose.% Since t$e private respondent3s re#ular place of assi#n"ent is t$e vessel MV CotabatoPrincess w$ic$ plies t$e Manila/6stancia/Iloilo/7a"boan#a/Cotabato route, we are of t$e opinion t$at Labor*rbiter *rt$ur L. *"ansec was correct in concludin# t$at Manila could be considered part of t$e co"plainant3sterritorial worplace. espondent +LC, t$erefore, co""itted no #rave abuse of discretion in sustainin# t$elabor arbiter3s denial of $erein petitioner3s Motion to 2is"iss.

A@66:46, pre"ises considered, t$e instant petition is $ereby 2ISMISS62 for lac of "erit.

S4 42662.