Philippine Shipping Updates – Manning Industry [Download]

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, Managing Partner, Del Rosario & Del Rosario, July 23, 2007


This issue contains the following:

No major changes in NLRC fees

Club Letter of Guarantee (CLOG) under question in the NLRC Commission

NLRC Computerized Raffle System:  Is it working?

Supreme Court decisions considered jurisprudence

Supreme Court rules dismissal of master illegal; awards basic pay but not leave pay and overtime pay

No major changes in NLRC fees

There are no major changes in NLRC fees.  Except for the addition of a fee for walk-in settlements (P500 –about US$10) and a fee for postponements (P500 – about US$10), the fees have essentially remained the same.

All complainants including seafarers can still file a complaint for free.

Other changes include:

Filing fee for Motion to Quash (re: Writ of Execution)           P500 to P3,000
Filing fee for Motion to Recompute Award                              P500 to P700
Filing fee for Third Party Claim/Complaint                            P5,000 to P7,000
Appeal Fee                                                                                   P150 to P500

Those interested in getting a copy of the new schedule of fees (NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 08-07) may email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Club Letter of Guarantee (CLOG) under question in the NLRC Commission

There are now some new decisions of the NLRC Commission disallowing the use of the CLOG as collateral.  These decisions do not dismiss the appeal but require the posting of “sufficient collateral” instead of the CLOG. 

In early 2006, the industry leaders were able to explain to then Chairman Bitionio the value of the CLOG as collateral which led to its acceptance by most commissioners.  The issue was recently taken up with present chairman, Hon. Gerardo Nograles but unfortunately, we have now received two decisions questioning the use of the CLOG. 

Perhaps the industry leaders can again explain to the NLRC that the CLOG is “sufficient collateral”.

NLRC Computerized Raffle System:  Is it working?
NLRC Chairman Gerardo Nograles has implemented the computerized raffling system of assigning complaints to labor arbiters (called the Electronic Case Management System).  The previous system was based on “ping pong balls” being rotated to pick the labor arbiter to handle a particular complaint.  It was alleged that this manual system was subject to abuse as the “ping pong balls” always happen to “win” the same labor arbiter for particular plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Based on limited feedback of cases handled by Del Rosario & Del Rosario, the present computerized system appears to be working.  If you will recall, former Chairman Bitonio started the computerized raffle system but this was stopped as the computerized system was allegedly “sabotaged”.  Let us hope this present system continues as it will help restore to some extent the credibility of the NLRC.

Supreme Court decisions considered jurisprudence

Any decision of the Supreme Court is considered jurisprudence under Philippine law.  Such decision need not be received by the parties in order to be considered jurisprudence.  Such decision need not be final, that is, still subject to Motion for Reconsideration, in order to be considered jurisprudence.  Such decision need not be a decision en banc (by the entire three divisions of the Court) in order to be considered jurisprudence.  It is enough that a division has issued the decision. 

The only remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision is to have the Supreme Court reversed its decision in the same case or if it involves an issue such as the “120 days issue”, that the Supreme Court issues another decision to the contrary.


Supreme Court rules dismissal of master illegal; awards basic pay but not leave pay and overtime pay

Master allegedly failed to take steps to ensure safety of vessel and its cargo causing huge amount of damages on cargo and vessel.  The Master was dismissed.  He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and the Supreme Court awarded his wages for the unexpired portion of his contract.

The Court ruled as follows:

•    The “Log of Events” submitted in evidence was just “merely a typewritten enumeration of incidents of damages to the cargoes and the vessel, but it does not state the source and who prepared the same.”  “While petitioner claims that it was prepared by the vessel’s technical superintendent, he was not identified at all.  The log of events did not also provide a detailed account of respondent’s act of incompetence. There is no way of verifying the truth of those entries, and if they were actually recorded in the vessel logbook on the dates the alleged incidents took place.”
•    “…the two sets of Senior Officer Evaluation Reports allegedly prepared by the officers next in rank did not help…while the report showed unsatisfactory performance…they failed to show the exact designations of the persons who prepared the same, and neither do their signatures appear over the typewritten names…

However, the Court also ruled that master’s “overtime and leave pay should not be included in the computation of the unexpired portion of wages since he (master) was no longer rendering services during that period of time, as he had already been repatriated.”

Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Felicisimo Carilla; G.R. No.157975; June 26, 2007; Third Division; Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Ponente




This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  For further information, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
This publication is sent from time to time to clients and friends.  To unsubscribe, reply to this email and put "unsubscribe" in the subject.

___________________________________________
Del Rosario & Del Rosario
Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc.
Tel. 63 2 810 1791    Fax 63 2 817 1740
24/7 mobile  63 917 830 8384
www.delrosariolaw.com
www.delrosario-pandiphil.com