ROSALINDA M. MEDIAVILLO IN BEHALF OF DECEASED SEAFARER NIDA B. MERCURIO, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION), MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORP., CSCS IN…
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
The facts are as follows: On 27 January 2011, Rosalinda Mediavillo (“petitioner Mediavillo”) filed the Complaint[4] for non-payment of death benefits, and attorney’s fees, on behalf of her sister, Nida Mercurio (“Nida”), against CSCS International (“respondent CSCS”), through its local manning agent, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (“respondent MMC”), and MMC President Eduardo Menese (“respondent Menese;” collectively, “private respondents”). The case was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. OFW(M)01-01664-11.
On 09 April 2011, petitioner Mediavillo filed the Position Paper (For the Complainant).[5] The Position Paper (For the Complainant) alleged: on 15 September 2009, respondent CSCS, through respondent MMC, re-hired Nida as crew stewardess on “M/V Costa Europa” (“the Vessel”);[6] before reporting for duty, Nida underwent pre-employment medical examination, and was declared fit to work; on 28 September 2009, Nida commenced her duties as crew stewardess on the Vessel; on 26 February 2010, the Vessel crashed into a dock at the Egyptian Red Sea Resort; three members of the crew were killed, and four passengers were wounded in the incident; Mercurio and the rest of the crew were sent back to the Philippines; in her post-employment medical examination, Nida was diagnosed with “Hypertension, controlled,” and was declared fit to work;[7] Nida stayed at her house in Cavite City, and during her stay there, she often narrated the crash of the Vessel to petitioner Mediavillo; Nida suffered sleepless nights, and became restless and nervous because she recalled her ordeal on the Vessel; more or less 28 days after her return to the Philippines, Nida suffered from a heart attack, and died from “Acute pulmonary edema prob. Sec. to acute myocardial infarction; Hypertension II;”[8] Nida was survived only by her sisters, petitioner Mediavillo and Lolita Mercurio (“Lolita”);[9] pursuant to Section 20(A)(1) of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (“POEA SEC”), the work-related death of Nida entitled her heirs to death benefits and burial benefits; Nida’s heirs made demands for the payment of death benefits upon private respondents, but the latter did not pay the said claims; the failure of private respondents to pay the claims compelled petitioner Mediavillo to secure the services of counsel.
The Position Paper (For the Complainant) prayed that: private respondents be ordered to pay $50,000.00 as death benefits, $1,000.00 as burial benefits, P500,000.00 as moral damages, P500,000.00 as compensatory damages, P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and other just and equitable reliefs.
On 12 May 2011, private respondents filed the Position Paper (For the Respondents).[10] It alleged: Section 20(A)(1) provided for entitlement to death benefits when death is work-related, and it occurred during the term of the employment contract; when Nida returned to the Philippines on 01 March 2010, her employment contract was deemed terminated, and there was no longer any employer-employee relationship between her and private respondents; Nida died on 01 April 2010, one month after her employment contract ended; petitioner Mediavillo did not prove by substantial evidence that the Nida’s cause of death was work-related; as per the Affidavit of Dr. Vedasto Lim (“Dr. Lim”),[11] Nida’s cause of death was not work-related; since Mediavillo’s cause of death was not work-related, and occurred after the termination of her employment contract, her death was not compensable; petitioner Mediavillo was not able to prove her filiation to Nida; petitioner Mediavillo’s hiring of counsel was unjustified; respondent Menese cannot be held liable since respondent MMC had a separate personality distinct from its officers and stockholders.
On 16 May 2011, petitioner Mediavillo filed the Reply (For the Complainant)[12]. On 06 June 2011, private respondents filed the Reply (To Complainant’s Position Paper).[13] On 12 June 2011, petitioner Mediavillo filed the Rejoinder (For the Complainant).[14] On 15 June 2011, private respondents filed the Respondents’ Rejoinder[15].
Labor Arbiter Quintin B. Cueto III (“LA Cueto”) rendered the Decision dated 17 October 2011[16], dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit.
On 14 November 2011, petitioner Mediavillo filed the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal[17] before the NLRC, reiterating the arguments in the Position Paper (For the Complainant). On 05 December 2011, private respondents filed the Opposition (To Complainant’s Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal).[18]
On 06 June 2012, the NLRC issued the assailed Decision. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision read:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complainant’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[19]
On 26 June 2012, petitioner Mediavillo moved for the reconsideration of the assailed Decision.[20] The NLRC denied the Motion in the assailed Resolution.
Thus, this Petition for Certiorari, with the following lone assignment of error:
1. Whether or not the Honorable Commission, Fourth Division, seriously and palpably erred and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the late Nida Mercurio died after termination of contract.[21]
The issue is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Decision, and the assailed Resolution.
The Petition for Certiorari answers in the affirmative. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Decision, and the assailed Resolution. It thrusts: prior to her employment on the Vessel, Nida did not have any heart disease; Nida’s employment as crew stewardess on the Vessel involved a strenuous workload, and longer working hours; her job functions, and the crash of the Vessel on 26 February 2010 contributed to the development of Nida’s myocardial infarction or heart disease; it is likewise possible that Nida developed posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) because of the incident; PTSD was an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease; Section 20(A)(1) of the POEA SEC provided that work-related cause of death entitled the seafarer to death and burial benefits; while death should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract, the redress sought by petitioner Mediavillo was warranted under justifiable circumstances; thus, under Section 20(A)(1) of the POEA SEC, petitioner Mediavillo was entitled to $50,000.00 as death benefits, and $1,000.00 as burial benefits, for the work-related death of Nida; petitioner Mediavillo was also entitled to 10% of the total money claims as attorney’s fees, and cost of suit.
The Comment answers in the negative. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Decision, and the assailed Resolution. It parries: the terms and conditions of the POEA SEC governed the employer-employee relationship between private respondents and Nida; deemed written into the POEA SEC were the requisites for compensability of work-related deaths; the POEA SEC was terminated on 27 February 2009, while Nida died on 01 April 2009; since Nida was no longer in the employ of private respondents when she died, petitioner Mediavillo was not entitled to death and burial benefits; the claimant had the burden of proof to show by substantial evidence that there is a causal connection between the nature of the seafarer’s employment and her illness, or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by the seafarer’s working conditions; Nida was not medically repatriated; Nida died two months after she disembarked from the Vessel; the cause of death which is Acute Pulmonary Edema, was not work-related; suffering from sleepless nights did not justify work-relation of the cause of death; petitioner Mediavillo was not able to show that the cardiac incident showed symptoms during the performance of the work, or that the cardiac attack was preceded by strain of work of sufficient severity, followed by clinical signs of cardiac insult within a 24-hour period, pursuant to Section 32-A(11)a-c of the POEA SEC; the work-relation of Nida’s cause of death was disproved by the medical findings of Dr. Lim; since Nida’s cause of death was not work-related, petitioner Mediavillo was not entitled to death and burial benefits.
THE COURT’S RULING
We rule in the negative. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Decision, and the assailed Resolution.
Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is applicable. It reads:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The term “grave abuse of discretion” has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.” Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to “truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void.” From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross.[22]
There is here no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. Readings of the assailed Decision, and the assailed Resolution show that the NLRC had factual and legal bases for its ruling.
The NLRC was correct when it ruled that Nida’s death was not compensable under Section 20(A) of the POEA SEC. However, in order to afford full protection to labor, we will discuss compensability under Sections 20(B)(1) and (4)(c), and 32-A-11 of the POEA SEC.
Sections 20(A)(1) and (4)(c) of the POEA SEC are relevant. They read:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH
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 an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.
xxx
The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.
As provided in the above quoted provision of the POEA SEC, the death of a seafarer may be compensable under Section 20(A). Under Section 20(A), a seafarer is entitled to death benefits, and burial benefits, when the death occurred during the term of the employment contract, and the death was work-related.
The NLRC was correct when it ruled that petitioner Mediavillo cannot recover death and burial benefits under Section 20(A) of the POEA SEC, because petitioner Mediavillo failed to prove the requisites of death during employment, and work-related death, under Section 20(A) of the POEA SEC.
The first requisite is absent. Nida’s employment contract with private respondents was terminated, and no longer in effect when she died. While it is true that as per the POEA Overseas Filipino Worker Information (“OFW Information”), Nida was deployed on 28 September 2009, and her contract was for 8 months (i.e., until 08 May 2010), her employment was deemed terminated following the grounding incident on 26 February 2010. Thus, as early as 01 March 2010 when Nida was repatriated to the Philippines, there was no employer-employee relationship to speak of. Since Nida’s death on 01 April 2010, did not occur during the effectivity of her employment contract, she is not entitled to the benefits enumerated in Section 20(A) of the POEA SEC.
The second requisite is absent. Petitioner Mediavillo did not prove by substantial evidence that Nida’s death was work-related. Nida did not have any record of illness during her service aboard Costa Europa. As a matter of fact, during both her Pre-employment Medical Examination and Post-employment Medical Examination, she was found “Fit to Work.” Thus, we cannot conclude that Nida acquired or developed heart disease during the course of her employment as cabin stewardess. Even the claim that she probably had PTSD because of the grounding incident is a mere conjecture not supported by substantial evidence. Since Nida’s death cannot be considered work-related, she is not entitled to the benefits enumerated under Section 20(A) of the POEA SEC.
On account of liberal interpretation permeating seafarer’s agreements[23], we likewise consider compensability under Section 32-A of the POEA SEC. Section 32-A-11 of the POEA SEC reads:
SECTION 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. The seafarer’s work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
The following diseases are considered as occupational when contracted under working conditions involving the risks described herein:
11 Cardio-vascular events – to include heart attack, chest pain (angina), heart failure or sudden death. Any of the following conditions must be met:
a. If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by an unusual strain by reasons of the nature of his work
b. the strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be [of] sufficient severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac insult to constitute causal relationship
c. If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship
d. if a person is a known hypertensive or diabetic, he should show compliance with prescribed maintenance medications and doctor-recommended lifestyle changes. The employer shall provide a workplace conducive for such compliance in accordance with Section 1(A) paragraph 5.
e. in a patient not known to have hypertension or diabetes, as indicated on his last PEME
As indicated in Section 32-A of the POEA SEC above quoted, a seafarer is entitled to death benefits when the death occurred after the term of the employment contract, and from an occupational disease, i.e., an illness which is work-related.
The first requisite is present. Nida’s death occurred after the termination of the employment contract.
The second requisite is absent. There is no evidence that Nida’s illness, which caused her death, was work-related. Petitioner Mediavillo failed to show by substantial evidence that all the conditions in Section 32-A were complied with. Apart from the bare assertions of petitioner Mediavillo, ther was no evidence adduced to show that: Nida’s work as cabin stewardess involved the risks described in Section 32-A; her heart ailment was contracted as a result of her exposure to the described risks; her heart ailment was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and there was no notorious negligence on the part of Nida.
In totality, since none of the conditions required to be proved were shown to exist, petitioner Mediavillo cannot recover death benefits for the death of Nida under Section 32-A of the POEA SEC.
We DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari, and AFFIRM the Decision dated 06 June 2012, and the Resolution dated 27 July 2012, in NLRC NCR 01-01664-11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] CA Rollo, p. 03.
[2] Annex “A,” CA Rollo, p. 24.
[3] Annex “B,” CA Rollo, p. 31.
[4] Annex “H” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 66.
[5] Annex “C,” CA Rollo, p. 34.
[6] Certification, Annex “A” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 54; Overseas Filipino Worker Information, Annex “B” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 55.
[7] Medical Certificate dated 04 March 2010, Annex “D” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 57.
[8] Medical Certificate dated 26 January 2011, Annex “F” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 59.
[9] Death Certificate of Tarcila Mercurio, Annex “G-1” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 61; Death Certificate of Gregorio Mercurio, Annex “G-2” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 62; Birth Certificate Rosalinda Mercurio, Annex “G-4” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 64; Birth Certificate of Lolita Mercurio, Annex “G-5” to Position Paper (For the Complainant) dated 09 April 2011, CA Rollo, p. 65.
[10] Annex “C-1,” CA Rollo, p. 69.
[11] Annex “6” to Position Paper (For the Respondents) dated 12 May 2011, CA Rollo, p. 93.
[12] Annex “C-2,” CA Rollo, p. 94.
[13] Annex “C-3,” CA Rollo, p. 102.
[14] Annex “C-4,” CA Rollo, p. 112.
[15] Annex “C-5,” CA Rollo, p. 117.
[16] Annex “D,” CA Rollo, p. 123.
[17] Annex “E,” CA Rollo, p. 131.
[18] Annex “F,” CA Rollo, p. 154.
[19] Supra, at note 02.
[20] Motion for Reconsideration, Annex “G,” CA Rollo, p.172.
[21] Supra, at note 01.
[22] Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 155306, 28 August 2013, citing Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, 15 June 2011.
[23] Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., et al., v. Salazar, G.R. No. 188595, 28 August 2013, citing The Estate of Posedio Ortega v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175005, 30 April 2008.