CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., SAMPAGUITA D. MARAVE AND/OR COLUMBIA SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., LIMASSOL, CYPRUS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH…
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
Before this Court is the Petition for Certiorari[1]
filed by Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. and Sampaguita D.
Marave and/or Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd. (“petitioners”), imputing
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part
of the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) in issuing the
following: (1) Decision dated 29 June 2012;[2] and (2) Resolution dated 23 August 2012.[3]
The facts are as follows: Armela A. Velasco (“respondent Armela”) filed the Complaint,[4]
for and in behalf of her deceased father Manuel Teruel (“Manuel
Teruel”), before the NLRC, NCR, Quezon City for payment of death
benefits, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, against
petitioners.
Respondent’s Position Paper[5]
alleged: respondent Armela’s father Manuel Teruel was a seafarer who
worked with the petitioners from 1989; petitioners employed Manuel
Teruel on crude oil/chemical tanker type of vessels as oiler, and he
travelled worldwide under extreme conditions of high and low
temperature, with exposure to toxic chemicals (mainly crude oil and
diesel fumes); in Manuel Teruel’s several deployments, he had been
declared “fit to work as a seaman” by the company-accredited diagnostic
clinic; on 29 July 2008, petitioners rehired Manuel Teruel as an oiler
on board the Cape Akrotori, with a salary of US$563 per month, for a
period of 9 months, and Manuel Teruel boarded the vessel on 3 August
2008; his stay on board was uneventful, until in May 2009, when Manuel
Teruel was about to disembark from his vessel of assignment, he felt
episodes of body weakness and slurring of speech; on 13 May 2009,
petitioners repatriated Manuel Teruel to Manila; upon Manuel Teruel’s
repatriation, respondent Armela noticed that her father appeared
confused, and seemed to be a psychiatric case; Manuel Teruel stayed at
home and rested, and did not bother to pay attention to the medical
problem suffered on board the ship; on 24 November 2009, Manuel Teruel
consulted Dr. Bernard Albano of De La Salle University Medical Center,
and Dr. Albano gave the following diagnosis: “Diabetes Mellitus 2,
suspect; T/C CerebroVascular Disease probably infarct, cannot totally
R/O Psychiatric Disorder;” chest x-ray was conducted on 1 March 2010
on Manuel Teruel, and had the following results: “Atheromatous Aorta,
additional Apicolordotic view is suggested;” medical examination on 3
August 2010 at the De la Salle University Medical Center resulted in
the following diagnosis: “S/P Cerebro-Vascular Disease with right sided
residuals; Hypertension, stage 2; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2;” brain
CT scan conducted on 4 March 2010, gave the following result:
“Malacic changes, left temporal, left occipital and right lentiform
nucleus with ex-vacuo dilatation of the temporal and occipital horns of
the left lateral ventricle; sub-acute cerebral infarction, left
temporo-parietal region;” on 10 March 2010, Manuel Terual filed a
claim for permanent disability benefits with the Social Security System;
on 29 July 2009, the Social Security System approved Manuel Teruel’s
application for disability benefits, and awarded him P50,225.00,
treating Manuel Teruel’s illnesses as work-related; on 23 August 2010,
Manuel Teruel died, and the cause of death was indicated in the
Certificate of Death[6] was
“Immediate Case: Pneumonia; Antecedent cause: Cerebro-Vascular Disease;
Underlying cause: Hypertension; Other significant conditions:
Diabetes Mellitus Type II;” respondent Armela filed this case in behalf
of her father, before the Labor Arbiter, claiming death benefits and
burial expenses against petitioners for Manuel Teruel’s death.
The petitioners’ Position Paper[7]
countered: respondent Armela is the alleged surviving adopted child of
the late Manuel Teruel who, prior to his death, was employed as Oiler
by petitioner Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., on behalf of its
foreign principal, petitioner Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd./Limassol,
Cyprus; on 29 July 2008, Manuel Teruel signed a contract with
petitioners under which he was hired as an oiler on board the vessel
Cape Akrotiri, with a salary of US$563.00 per month, under a nine-month
POEA approved employment contract; Manuel Teruel boarded the vessel
Cape Akrotiri from 3 August 2008 to 11 May 2009; Manuel Teruel returned
to Manila on 13 May 2009 when his employment contract ended due, and
received his final wages, and in a pro forma claim form, it was
indicated that Manuel Teruel did not have any claims, and the box
“Finished Contract” was checked; on 2 June 2009, Manuel Teruel received
his leave pay credit; on 3 June 2009, Manuel Teruel signed and
executed the discharge receipt and release of claim; Manuel Teruel did
not have incident/accident/illness during his tenure on board the
vessel; thereafter, petitioners did not hear from Manuel Teruel as
regards any claim.
On 10 February 2012, the Labor Arbiter issued the Decision,[8] the dispositive portion of which read:
WHEREFORE, forgoing premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering respondents CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC.
and/or COLUMBIA SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., jointly and severally, to pay
complainant ARMELA A. VELASCO:a) death benefits in the amount of US$ 89,100.00;
b) burial expenses in the amount of US$ 1,000.00; and
Sub-total – 10% attorney’s fees – GRAND TOTAL c) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
judgment award – for a total award of US$99,110 or its peso equivalent
at the time of actual payment.All other claims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision to the NLRC. On 29 June 2012, the NLRC issued the assailed Decision,[10] which affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
The petitioners filed Motion for Reconsideration.[11] The NLRC denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in the assailed Resolution[12] dated 23 August 2012.
Thus, petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari,[13] making the following assignment of errors:
I. PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, AND
LIKEWISE SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED US$99,110.00 AS DEATH BENEFITS
OF A SEAFARER WHO FINISHED HIS CONTRACT WITHOUT ANY CLAIM FOR
SICKNESS/INFIRMITY OR ANY ISSUE, AND DIED ONE YEAR AND THREE MONTHS
AFTER REPATRIATION TO MANILA.II. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION
AND LIKEWISE SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES.III. PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ERRED IN
AWARDING BENEFITS TO A CLAIMANT WHO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED HER RIGHT AS AN
HEIR OR AS AN ADOPTED CHILD. TO MAKE MATTERS WORST, PRIVATE RESPONDENT
PRODUCED COURT DECREE ADOPTION DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CERTIFIED BY THE
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BRANCH 77,
AS “ALL FAKE.”
The issue is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion
in declaring that respondent Armela was entitled to death benefits,
burial expenses, and attorney’s fees for the death of Manuel Teruel.
The Petition for Certiorari argues in the affirmative. The NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared that respondent
Armela was entitled to death benefits, burial expenses, and attorney’s
fees for the death of Manuel Teruel.
The Petition thrusts:
the NLRC seriously erred when it awarded to respondent Armela
US$99,110.00 as death benefits for the death of Manuel Teruel, who
finished his contract without any claim for sickness/infirmity or any
issued, and died one year and 3 months after repatriation to Manila;
while the rule is the employer can only be liable for death benefits if
the death occurs during the term of the seafarer’s contract, or occurs
while the employee is in the service of the ship, or while the employee
is travelling to or from the ship, at the time of Manuel Teruel’s death
on 23 August 2010, Manuel Teruel was no longer under the employ of
petitioners, because the employment contract had ended, thus there was
no ground to award death benefits because Manuel Teruel died one year
and 3 months after repatriation, and repatriation was due to finished
contract; the NLRC gravely erred when it awarded death benefits despite
the existence of a valid and legal release document (i.e., discharge
receipt and release of claim) absolving petitioners from liability;
the NLRC’s reliance on the medical certificates submitted by the
respondent Armela is misplaced, because the medical reports were all
made more than six months after repatriation of Manuel Teruel; the
medical reports do not trace, and did not connect the death of Manuel
Teruel’s to his work on board the vessel; Manuel Teruel failed to
report to the company designated physician for the mandatory 3-day
post-employment medical examination requirement upon his return to
Manila, and this resulted to forfeiture of his benefits under the POEA
SEC; the NLRC seriously erred when it ruled that respondent Armela is
entitled to attorney’s fees; the NLRC gravely erred in awarding
benefits to respondent Armela who did not establishe her right as an
heir (i.e., as an adopted child); respondent Armela produced alleged
court decree adoption documents, however the Branch Clerk of Court of
the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Branch 77, certified the documents
as fake, thus respondent Armela has no real right to any claim against
petitioners; respondent Armela is not the proper party in interest, not
being an heir, nor an adopted child of Manuel Teruel.
In the Resolution dated 14 November 2012,[14]
we directed respondent Armela to file Comment to the Petition, and
directed petitioners to file Reply to respondent Armela’s Comment.
The respondent’s Comment to Petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari[15]
argues in the negative. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion when it declared that respondent Armela was entitled to death
benefits and burial expenses for the death of Manuel Teruel.
The Comment parries: the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the assailed Decision; the controlling factor
for an injury or an illness to be compensable under the POEA SEC is that
the seafarer suffers work-related injury or contracted work-related
illness during the term of his employment contract; respondent Armela
established that Manuel Teruel contracted his illness on board the ship,
and this sickness eventually caused his death, and the sickness is
listed under Section 32-A of the POEA SEC as an occupational disease,
hence it need not be proven; the failure to comply with 3-working day
reporting requirement for post-employment medical examination refers
only to medically repatriated seafarers, and Section 20 (B) (3) of the
POEA SEC does not apply to the case of late Manuel Teruel, because
Manuel Teruel is not a medical repatriate, but he was repatriated
because the employment contract was finished; respondent Armela was
compelled to litigate, due to petitioners’ failure to satisfy her valid
claim, thus she is entitled to attorney’s fees of 10% of the total award
at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; petitioners have
no basis to collaterally attack the filiation between Manuel Teruel and
respondent Armela; petitioners grounded their objection to the right
of the respondent Armela, citing the the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, while what is applicable now is the Family Code; respondent
Armela did not register her objection to the petitioners’ motion to
expunge the decree of adoption documents, thus the decree of adoption
submitted by the respondent Armela is deemed expunged from the records;
respondent Armela is the only designated beneficiary of Manuel Teruel
and is the real party-in-interest and has a legal standing to pursue a
claim against petitioners; authentic documents (i.e., application for
employment – Career Philippines Shipmanagement Inc, St. Peter Life Plan
application of Delia V. Teruel, CAP Pension Plan of Delia V. Teruel,
Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines with
the assignment of beneficiary, Seaman’s Discharge Book, school documents
of respondent Armela) show that respondent Armela’s filiation is deemed de facto adoption relationship without a court order under Article 187 (1) of the Family Code.
In the Resolution dated 11 February 2013,[16] we directed parties to file their simultaneous memoranda.
The Memorandum[17] filed by the petitioners reiterates the averments in the Petition for Certiorari. Private Respondent’s Memorandum,[18] reiterates the averments in her Comment.
THE COURT’S RULING:
The Court rules in the affirmative. The NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion when it declared that respondent Armela was entitled
to death benefits, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees for the death
of Manuel Teruel.
The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (“POEA-SEC”) (as provided under Department Order No.
4, and Memorandum Circular No. 9, both series of 2000 of the Department
of Labor and Employment), which contains the Standard Terms and
Conditions Governing The Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board
Ocean-Going Vessels, governs the employment contract between Manuel
Teruel and the petitioners. The POEA issued the POEA-SEC pursuant to its
mandate under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 247[19]
to “secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino
contract workers and ensure compliance therewith” and to “promote and
protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.”[20]
Section 20-A of the POEA-SEC enumerates the duties of an employer in
case of death of the seafarer, during the term of his employment
contract. It provides:
Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH
1. In case of 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 (21) but not exceeding four (4) children,
at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.
As provided in Section 20 (1) above-quoted, for death of a
seafarer to be compensable under this provision, the death must occur
during the term of his contract of employment; it is the only condition
for compensability.[21] The
death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer
liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is
established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his
employment contract, the employer is liable. However, if the seaman
dies after the termination of his contract of employment, his
beneficiaries are not entitled to the death benefits enumerated above.[22]
Clearly, to be entitled for death compensation benefits from
the employer, the death of the seafarer (1) must be work-related; and
(2) must happen during the term of the employment contract.
Thus, there can be no award for death benefits because the death of
Manuel Teruel happened after the employment contract had ended.
Even assuming that the death of Manuel Teruel can be construed
as happening during the term of the employment contract because the
death was caused by an illness which was acquired during the employment
contract, still we find that there is no basis to award death benefits
for Manuel Teruel because the illness which caused his death was not
work-related. Under the Amended POEA Contract, work-relatedness is now
an important requirement. The qualification that death must be
work-related has made it necessary to show a causal connection between a
seafarer’s work and his death to be compensable.[23]
In this case, respondent Armela failed to prove that Manuel
Teruel’s ailment was work-related and was acquired during his 9-month
sea deployment. Respondent Armela’s claim that in May 2009, when Manuel
Teruel was about to disembark from his vessel of assignment, he felt
episodes of body weakness and slurring of speech, is not substanted by
any evidence. Upon Manuel Teruel’s repatriation on 13 May 2009, Manuel
Teruel stayed at home and rested, and did not bother to pay attention
to the alleged medical problem he suffered on board the ship. It was
only on 24 November 2009, or more than 6 months after his contract with
petitioners had expired, that he consulted a physician and was diagnosed
of diabetes mellitus type 2 and cerebro vascular disease. Respondent
Armela’s averment that Manuel Teruel’s exposures to the crude oil and
diesel fumes of the vessel caused or aggravated Manuel Teruel’s diabetes
mellitus type 2 and cerebro vascular disease is without proof. Without
a post-medical examination or its equivalent to show that the disease
for which the seaman died was contracted during his employment or that
his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment,
the employer/s cannot be made liable for death compensation.[24]
Petitioners assert there was no basis to award benefits to
respondent Armela, allegedly because she is not an “heir” as defined in
the New Civil Code. Respondent Armela had no personality to claim
death benefits because she is neither a dependent, nor a beneficiary of
Manuel Teruel.
We agree.
Under No. 3, Definition of Terms, POEA-SEC Standard Terms and
Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers
On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, “Beneficiary(ies)” refers to the person(s)
to whom the death compensation and other benefits due under the
employment contract are payable in accordance with rules of succession
under the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended.[25]
Under Article 782 of the New Civil Code, an heir is a person called to
the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of
law.
In this case, respondent Armela admits she is not the
biological child of Manuel Teruel, and that she was not legally adopted
by the spouses Teruel. However, respondent Armela asserts she is a
rightful claimant claiming a “de facto adoption relationship without a
court order under Article 187 (1) of the Family Code.”
Respondent
Armela’s theory is without merit. There is no basis to allow her claim
for death benefits, absent a court decree of adoption, upon a mere “de
facto adoption relationship” based on the circumstances that she had
been consistently considered by the spouses Teruel as their own child.
While the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in
favor of the seafarer in construing the Standard Employment Contract, we
cannot allow claims for compensation based on surmises. When the
evidence presented negates compensability, this Court has no choice but
to deny the claim, lest we cause injustice to the employer.[26]
The law in protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes
neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer – there may be
cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests
of management but never should the scale be so tilted as to result in an
injustice to the employer.[27]
We GRANT the appeal. We SET ASIDE the
Decision dated 29 June 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission,
Quezon City, in NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M) 07-10651-11, and instead DISMISS the Complaint filed before the Labor Arbiter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] C.A. Rollo, p. 3.
[2] C.A. Rollo, p. 39.
[3] C.A. Rollo, p. 74.
[4] C.A. Rollo, p. 78.
[5] C.A. Rollo, p. 87.
[6] C.A. Rollo, p. 168.
[7] C.A. Rollo, p. 135.
[8] C.A. Rollo, p. 55.
[9] C.A. Rollo, pp. 71-72.
[10] C.A. Rollo, p. 39.
[11] C.A. Rollo, p. 388.
[12] C.A. Rollo, p. 74.
[13] C.A. Rollo, p. 3.
[14] C.A. Rollo, p. 441.
[15] C.A. Rollo, p. 444.
[16] C.A. Rollo, p. 526.
[17] C.A. Rollo, p. 557.
[18] C.A. Rollo, p. 585.
[19] Reorganizing the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and for Other Purposes, dated July 21, 1987.
[20] Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete, G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 247, 254, citing Secs. 3(i) and (j) of E.O. No. 247.
[21] Escarcha v. Leonis
Navigation Co., Inc., citing Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v.
Delgado, G.R. No. 168210, 17 June 2008.
[22] Ortega v. Court of
Appeas, G.R. No. 175005, 30 April 2008, citing Prudential Shipping and
Management Corporation v. Sta. Rita, Prudential Shipping and Management
Corporation v. Sta. Rita, G.R. No. 166580, 8 February 2007.
[23] Sy v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 191740, 15 February 2013 .
[24] Panganiban v. Tara
Trading Shipmanagement Inc., G.R. No. 187032, 18 October 2010, citing
Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 160315, 11 November
2005.
[25] Revised 2010 Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships
Definition of Terms:
For purposes of this contract, the following terms are defined as follows:
- Allottee – refers to any person named or designated by the seafarer as the recipient of his remittance to the Philippines.
- Basic Wage – refers to the salary of the seafarer exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other allowances and benefits.
- Beneficiary(ies) – refers to the person(s) to whom the death
compensation and other benefits due under the employment contract are
payable in accordance with rules of succession under the Civil Code of
the Philippines, as amended.x x x
[26] Aya-ay v. Arpaphil
Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 155359, 31 January 2006, citing Rino v.
Employees’ Compensation Commission, 387 Phil 612, 619 (2000).
[27] Id, citing Ledesma, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 537 SCRA 358, 371.