2010 Labor Law, Q7

A was an able seaman contracted by ABC Recruitment Agency for its foreign principal, Seaworthy Shipping Company (SSC). His employment contract provided that he would serve on board the Almieda II for eight (8) months with a monthly salary of US$450. In connection with his employment, he signed an undertaking to observe the drug and alcohol policy which bans possession or use of all alcoholic beverages, prohibited substances and un-prescribed drugs on board the ship. The undertaking provided that: (1) disciplinary action including dismissal would be taken against anyone in possession of the prohibited substances or who is impaired by the use of any of these substances, and (2) to enforce the policy, random test sampling would be done on all those on board the ship.
On his third month of service while the Almieda II was docked at a foreign port, a random drug test was conducted on all members of the crew and A tested positive for marijuana. He was given a copy of the drug test result. In compliance with the company’s directive, he submitted his written explanation which the company did not find satisfactory. A month later, he was repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, A filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint against the
agency and the principal for illegal dismissal with a claim for salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.
Was A’s dismissal valid? Explain. (3%)
Is his claim for salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract tenable? Explain. (3%)

Quick check

What mandatory procedural requirement must an employer satisfy to validly terminate an employee for illegal drug use?

Under DOH Department Order No. 53-03, why is a random drug screening test alone insufficient to support a valid dismissal?

What is the statutory monetary remedy for an illegally dismissed seafarer regarding unexpired contract salaries under R.A. 8042 as amended?

What was the Supreme Court ruling in Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles regarding the three-month salary cap in R.A. 8042?

Choices available with full access.

Who is solidarily liable with the foreign principal for money claims arising from an illegally dismissed seafarer's contract?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Labor Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Confirmatory Drug Testing
Under Department of Health regulations and mandatory labor standards, a positive result from a single random drug screening test is insufficient to justify an employee's dismissal. To establish just cause for termination based on drug use, the employer must conduct a subsequent confirmatory test using gas chromatography or mass spectrometry in an accredited laboratory. Relying exclusively on an initial screening test violates due process and invalidates the termination for lack of substantial evidence.

2. Seafarer Illegal Dismissal
A seafarer dismissed without just cause or procedural due process is illegally terminated under Philippine labor law. Employers bear the burden of proving that the cause for dismissal is valid and supported by requisite technical evidence. When a foreign principal or manning agency fails to substantiate the allegation of drug use through a proper confirmatory drug test, the seafarer's repatriation is deemed an illegal dismissal, entitling the worker to statutory labor remedies.

3. Unexpired Contract Salaries
Under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, and settled jurisprudence in Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles, an illegally dismissed overseas worker is entitled to full reimbursement of placement fees plus salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. The previous statutory limitation capping unexpired contract salaries to three months for contracts exceeding one year was declared unconstitutional, ensuring full recovery for the remaining contract term.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026