JULIETA R. ALIBO, IN BEHALF OF DECEASED ANGELITO V. ALIBO, AND HER MINOR CHILDREN JAMES PHILIP, MARK DANIEL, ANGELITO LORENZO, AND JOHN VINCENT, ALL SURNAMED ALIBO, PETITIONERS,…

Alibo versus Sea Cap Shipping

The Case

This is a labor case about a dead seafarer and the money his family says the manning agency owes them. Julieta Alibo, for herself and her four minor children, sued Sea Cap Shipping, its principal Sagana Shipping, its president Vicente Miranda, and the ship master Captain Fenolito Autajay, demanding death benefits, burial allowance, medical reimbursement, damages, and attorney's fees after her husband Angelito died of liver cirrhosis months after coming home from a chemical tanker. The case matters because it draws the exact boundary of a seafarer's entitlement to death benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract: death is compensable during the term of the contract, and even after the term ends, but only if the heirs prove a work-related illness contracted during that term. It is a lesson in substantial evidence, causation, and the burden of proof carried by the claimant's family.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed a complaint for non-payment of death benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, burial allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint in a decision dated 3 December 2012. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the dismissal in its decision dated 30 July 2013, and denied their motion for reconsideration in its resolution dated 22 October 2013. Petitioners then came to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, charging the National Labor Relations Commission with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Angelito Alibo had been deployed as an able-bodied seaman on Sea Cap vessels since 2007, and because he worked on chemical tankers he underwent stringent medical examinations before every employment. On 9 August 2011 he was examined and cleared for deployment to the vessel M/T AS Orelia as Bosun, a position requiring physical manual labor, including cleaning cargo holds and decks, chipping, scraping, brushing, and painting, and supervising the crew. In November 2011 he felt increasing pain on his sides and asked the ship master to let him see a doctor at the next port, but the doctor merely took his vital signs and certified him fit to resume duties. He kept working, lost weight, and his stomach became bloated, yet he finished his eight-month contract and disembarked in April 2012.

Back in the Philippines he was so weak he could barely push his own cart, and his legs were swollen. He tried to seek medical assistance from Sea Cap but the office was closed for the Lenten season. He went to the University of Santo Tomas Hospital, where tests revealed Ascites, portal hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver with hepatocellular carcinoma stage four, and he was told he had three to six months to live and that treatment would cost around 200,000 pesos. When he returned to Sea Cap on 12 April 2012, he was refused a post-employment medical examination, and Julieta was told that medical assistance was given only to seafarers who died on board the vessel. Angelito died on 9 July 2012, the antecedent cause being liver cirrhosis.

Private respondents countered that Angelito had complained on board of difficulty breathing and pain in the right upper abdomen, was diagnosed with gastritis, treated, declared fit for work, and not recommended for repatriation. They said he completed his contract on 4 April 2012, disembarked without medical issue, did not request a post-employment medical examination, and even signed a quit and release. Their central defense was that under the POEA Standard Employment Contract death is compensable only if it occurs during the term of employment, and Angelito died after his contract had ended.

Issues

• Whether or not the death of Angelito Alibo due to liver cirrhosis is compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract even though it occurred after the termination of his employment contract.
• Whether or not petitioners adduced substantial evidence that Angelito contracted a work-related illness during the term of his contract which caused his death.
• Whether or not petitioners are entitled to burial benefits, loss of future earnings, damages, and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20(B)(1) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides:

In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.

This is the textual hook for the claim, and it sets the two primary conditions: the illness must be work-related and it must occur during the term of the contract.

Section 18(A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides:

The employment of the seafarer shall cease when the seafarer completes his period of contractual service aboard the ship, signs-off from the ship and arrives at the point of hire.

This fixes the moment Angelito's employment ended, which is the pivot of the whole case.

Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides:

It is understood and agreed that the benefits mentioned above shall be separate and distinct from, and will be in addition to whatever benefits which the seafarer is entitled to under Philippine laws from the Social Security System, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, Employee's Compensation Commission, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund).

This is the Court's parting consolation: denial under the contract does not bar recourse to the social security agencies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the death is not compensable. Under Section 20(B)(1) the seafarer must meet two primary conditions, that the illness is work-related and that it occurred during the term of the contract, and under Section 18(A) Angelito's employment ceased when he completed his eight-month contract, signed off, and arrived at the point of hire in April 2012. He died in July 2012, after that termination. The Court nevertheless clarified that heirs may still recover for a death occurring after the contract ends, on account of a work-related illness, provided they prove three things: that the seafarer was ill during the term of his contract; that his illness was work-related, his work involving considerable exposure to the risks of contracting it; and that the illness caused his death.

On the second issue, the Court found these three elements unproven, citing four telling facts. First, petitioners failed to show that his work as Bosun exposed him to harmful chemicals; the mere assignment to a chemical tanker is not conclusive that the environment made him more susceptible. Second, there was no proof he was ill on board, his known illness being gastritis, which cannot be directly associated with liver cirrhosis, and absent proof of illness on board, causal connection cannot be presumed. Third, internet medical references do not conclusively prove the link held true for Angelito, there being no medical tests showing his actual exposure to chemicals tied to his illness. Fourth, petitioners showed no instances of other seafarers in his position contracting liver cirrhosis from such employment. The Court stressed that substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, and that bare allegations unsupported by evidence fall short; internet research cannot substitute for a medical opinion certified by a physician who examined Angelito and could attest that his illness was caused by work conditions.

On the third issue, the Court held that burial benefits, loss of future earnings, damages, and attorney's fees must likewise fail, since entitlement to them springs from the grant of death benefits, which was denied.

Doctrine

Death benefits under Section 20(B)(1) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract require two primary conditions: the illness must be work-related, and it must occur during the term of the contract. Employment ceases under Section 18(A) when the seafarer completes his contractual service, signs off, and arrives at the point of hire. Even so, heirs may recover for a death occurring after termination on account of a work-related illness, but they must prove that the seafarer was ill during the term of the contract, that the illness was work-related because his work involved considerable exposure to the risks of contracting it, and that the illness caused his death. The claimant bears the burden, measured by substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla but that level of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. Causal connection between the illness and the work cannot be presumed from the mere fact of assignment to a chemical tanker, and internet materials are no substitute for a physician's certified medical opinion. Ancillary claims for burial benefits, damages, and attorney's fees fall with the denial of death benefits.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the denial of death benefits and the other claims, while noting that petitioners may still claim benefits from the Social Security System, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, the Employees' Compensation Commission, the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, and the Pag-IBIG Fund.

Remember This

Memorize the three-part test for post-termination death: illness during the term, work-relatedness through considerable exposure to risk, and causation of death, all on substantial evidence. Examiners use this case to test the two conditions of Section 20(B)(1), the termination rule in Section 18(A), and why internet research and a chemical tanker assignment cannot replace medical proof of causation.