Cases - Labor Standards

Labor Standards under Usec. Josephus B.
Jimenez
BALITAO, MARIEL RATANI C.
SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC., AND/OR BULK CARRIERS LIMITED AND
SPECIAL MARITIME ENTERPRISES, AND M/V MAGELLAN, PETITIONERS, vs.
NENITA P. SALAZAR, ON BEHALF OF DECEASED ARMANDO L.
SALAZAR, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 188595
August 28, 2013
FACTS:
On 11 April 2003, Armando was employed as an Able Seaman by petitioner Sea Power Shipping
Enterprises, Inc. (agency) on behalf of its principal, Atlantic Bulk Carriers Limited, for a term of
nine months plus a three month-consented extension. He boarded the M/V Magellan in August
2003. After 17 months, his contract ended, and he returned to our shores. Two days after, he
was taken to the Tanza Family General Hospital, where he was confined in the Intensive Care
Unit (ICU) for three days. According to medical reports, he suffered from pneumonia.
Because of his confinement, Armando was unable to see the agencys physician for a post-
employment medical examination (PEME) that was supposed to be conducted within 72 hours
from his repatriation. Nevertheless, on the 7th or 8th day of Armandos confinement, Salazar
informed petitioners of her husbands condition and even asked them for the insurance proceeds.
The agency denied her claims. It reasoned that without the requisite PEME required by the 2005
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers
(POEA Contract), his beneficiaries could not avail themselves of the sickness allowance.
Armando checked in and out of several hospitals thereafter. At the Philippine General Hospital
where he was transferred in October 2004, he was diagnosed as suffering from lung carcinoma
with brain metastases. On 1 March 2005, he succumbed to metastatic lung carcinoma and died
of cardio-respiratory arrest, secondary to acute respiratory failure, and secondary to multi-organ
failure.
ISSUE:
Whether POEA is liable for the payment death and illness benefits to Armandos widow and minor
children?
LAW:
Death Benefits under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

Case Digest in Labor I (Labor Standards) under Usec. Josephus B. Jimenez
1. 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 (21) but not exceeding four
(4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.
xxxx
4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of work-related
injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:
xxxx
c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippines 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.
CASE HISTORY:
Armandos widow, Nenita, instituted before the labor arbiter (LA) a collection suit8 against
petitioners for seafarer benefits under Section 20 of the POEA Contract. Salazar sought
the payment of hospitalization and medical expenses, burial expenses, compensation and
death benefits, minor childs allowance for their daughter Alice, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorneys fees.
Petitioners denied liability. According to the agency, claims for death benefits, minor childs
allowance, and burial expenses under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract (Death Benefits)
would only prosper if the seafarer died during his employment term. Considering that
Armando died six months after his repatriation, it argued that Salazar could not claim
death benefits.
LA denied all of respondents monetary claims
Respondent appealed to the NLRC and obtained a favorable ruling
Noticeably, the NLRC did not award death benefits to respondent. It simply stated that the
death of Armando was not compensable, because he did not die during the term of his
contract. Dissatisfied with the grant of illness benefits only, Salazar filed a Motion for
Reconsideration in order to claim death benefits. For their part, petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, praying that the LA Decision denying all of respondents claims be reinstated.
In a minute Resolution, the NLRC denied both motions.
Respondent assailed before the CA the denial of death benefits by the LA and the NLRC.
In its assailed Decision, the CA granted respondents additional claim for death benefits,
thereby reversing the rulings of both the LA and the NLRC.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the CA.
Consequently, they filed the present Rule 45 petition.
Thus, this case.
RULING:
The Benefits Due to Respondent
Page 2 of 17
In summary, the NLRC and the CA were excessively fixated on the proximity of the time between
the repatriation and the death of the seafarer to automatically conclude that he contracted a fatal
illness during his service. The CA even stressed in its ruling that it was safe to make that
presumption.
This approach to case disposition by the CA making factual findings based only on
presumptions, and absent the quantum of evidence required in labor cases is an erroneous
application of the law on compensation proceedings.
Probability, and not mere possibility, is required; otherwise, the resulting conclusion would
proceed from deficient proofs. Thus, since the CA crafted a legal conclusion out of conjectures
and without substantial evidence, we rule that a reversible error of law attended its award of
death benefits, minor childs allowance, and burial expenses. For this reason, we delete the grant
thereof to respondent.
In the course of resolving the propriety of awarding death benefits, minor child's allowance, and
burial expenses under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract, this Court inevitably finds that grave
abuse of discretion also attended the NLRC's grant of medicine and hospitalization expenses and
sickness allowance under Section 20(B) of the POEA Contract, moral damages, and attorney's
fees to respondent. Specifically, we find that the labor court failed to establish in the first place
that, during the term of his contract, Armando contracted an illness that was work related.
Nevertheless, since its findings albeit unsubstantiated-were no longer appealed, we no longer
address the same.
The Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104593 are hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, in that the imposition to respondent of death benefits, minor child's allowance
and burial expenses under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract in the total amount of USD 58,000
is DELETED. On the other hand, this Court SUSTAINS the grant to respondent by the National
Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA NO. 049598-06 of the following amounts: PHP
47,144 as medicine and hospitalization expenses and USD 1,540 sickness allowance under Section
20(B) of the POEA Contract, PHP 500,000 as moral damages, and ten percent (10%) of the total
judgment award as and for attorney's fees.
OPINION:
The Supreme Court was rational in granting the award and modifying the decisions of the lower
court. In giving liberal interpretation in awarding death benefits to Armandos beneficiaries, the
court gave life to the very core of labor law which is social justice.
Page 3 of 17
WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., and REGINALDO OBEN/WALLEM

SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED, Petitioners, vs. DONNABELLE PEDRAJAS and SEAN
JADE PEDRAJAS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 192993
August 11, 2014
FACTS:
In 2004, petitioner Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. and Hernani Pedrajas (Hernani) entered into
a contract of employment wherein Hernani was hired as Engine Boy on board the M/V Crown
Jade. In March 2005, during the effectivity of his employment contract and while the vessel was
in Italy, Hernani was found hanging on the Upper Deck B of the vessel with a rope tied to his
neck. Hernani's spouse and herein respondent, Donnabelle Pedrajas (Donnabelle), was informed
that Hernani hanged himself and was found dead in the vessel. She was also informed that
investigations were being conducted by the Italian Government relative to Hernani's death. His
body was repatriated back to the Philippines in April 2005.
Suspecting foul play, Donnabelle sought the assistance of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory to conduct a forensic examination on the remains of Hernani and to investigate
the cause of his death. Donnabelle also requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
investigate the incident. After the investigation, the PNP Crime Laboratory and the NBI concluded
that homicide cannot be totally ruled out. Due to the foregoing, in June 2005, Donnabelle, as
beneficiary of Hernani, filed a claim for death compensation benefits under the POEA Standard
Employment Contract and the Associates Marine Officer's and Seafarer's Union of the Philippines
Collective Bargaining Agreement (AMOSUPCBA). She also demanded attorney's fees, moral, and
exemplary damages.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondents are entitled death benefits, considering the cause of death was declared
to be suicide?
LAW:
Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC provides:
No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity,

disability or death of a seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional
breach of his duties x x x.
The death of a seaman during the term of his employment makes the employer liable to
the former's heirs for death compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute.
Page 4 of 17
The employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman's
death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. Hence,
respondents' entitlement to any death benefit depends on whether petitioners' evidence
suffices to prove that Hernani committed suicide, and the burden of proof rests on his
employer.
CASE HISTORY:
Petitioners claim that they have no obligation to pay death benefits to the heirs of Hernani
because the latter's death was self-inflicted and therefore exempted from the coverage of
death benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-Standard Employment
Contract (POEASEC) and the AMOSUP-CBA.
Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioners and denied the respondents' claim for death
benefits.
Respondents appealed to the NLRC and it reversed the LA's decision and ruled that
Hernani's death was not proven to be self-inflicted. Hence, it awarded death
compensation and attorney's fees to the respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari ibefore the CA.
CA denied the petition and held that the Forensic Report issued by the Public
Prosecutors Office in Livorno, Italy was "weakened" by the findings of the PNP and the
NBI, which did not totally rule out homicide.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioners, but was denied in a
Resolution8 dated July 20, 2010.
Petitioners are now before this Court.
RULING:
No. Respondents are not entitled to compensation.
Since the petitioners were able to prove that Hemani committed suicide, Hemani' s death is not
compensable and his heirs are not entitled to any compensation or benefits. It is settled that
when the death of a seaman resulted from a deliberate or willful act on his own life, and it is
directly attributable to the seaman, such death is not compensable.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP
No. 102499, dated February 11, 2010, and the Resolution dated July 20, 2010, are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated March 31, 2006 is REINSTATED.
OPINION:
While the labor laws are generally in favor of labor, laws are established for a reason. The Court
cannot deviate from what it is mandated to enforce on the reason of pity or compassion. Our
Page 5 of 17
social legislations are generous enough to encompass wide scope of scenarios to protect the
welfare of or people, especially the workers, that there is little to no room of doubt as to its
interpretation. Especially now that there are several jurisprudences to adduce similar
circumstances. Although Labor Law is generally not a harsh legislation, I will leave this case with
the time honored maxim Dura Lex Sed Lex.
Page 6 of 17
ANITA N. CANUEL, for herself and on behalf of her minor children, namely:
CHARMAINE, CHARLENE, and CHARL SMITH, all surnamed CANUEL, Petitioners,
vs. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, EDUARDO U. MANESE, and KOTANI
SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED, Respondents.
G.R. No. 190161
October 13, 2014
FACTS:
Nancing R. Canuel was hired by respondent Magsaysay Maritime Corporation as Third Assistant
Engineer for its foreign principal, respondent Kotani Ship management Limited to be deployed on
board the vessel M/V North Sea (vessel) for a period of twelve (12) months, with a basic salary
of US$640.00 a month.
He underwent the required pre-employment medical examination, and was declared fit to work
by the company-designated physician. Thereafter, he joined the vessel and commenced his work
on July 19, 2006.
Nancing figured in an accident while in the performance of his duties on board the vessel, and,
as a result, injured the right side of his body. He was brought to Shanghai Seamens Hospital in
Shanghai, China where he was diagnosed to have suffered "bilateral closed traumatic
hemothorax." Nancing informed his wife, herein petitioner Anita N. Canuel, about the accident
and his confinement. On March 24, 2007, he was medically repatriated and immediately admitted
to the Manila Doctors Hospital under the care of a team of medical doctors led by Dr. Benigno A.
Agbayani, Jr., Magsaysays Medical Coordinator. Due to his worsening condition, Nancing was
placed at the hospitals intensive care unit on April 8, 2007. He eventually died on April 25,
2007. Nancings death certificate indicated the immediate cause of his death as acute respiratory
failure, with lung metastasis and r/o bone cancer as antecedent cause and underlying cause,
respectively.
ISSUE:
Whether payment death and illness benefits is due.
LAW:
2000 POEASEC:

1. In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract, the
(4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. (Emphases
supplied)
Page 7 of 17
Part A (4) of the same provision further complements Part A (1) by stating the "other
liabilities" of the employer to the seafarers beneficiaries if the seafarer dies (a) as a result
of work-related injury or illness, and (b) during the term of his employment, viz.:
xxxx
4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of work-related
injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:
a. The employer shall pay the deceaseds beneficiary all outstanding obligations due the
seafarer under this Contract.
b. The employer shall transport the remains and personal effects of the seafarer to the
Philippines at employers expense except if the death occurred in a port where local
government laws or regulations do not permit the transport of such remains. In case death
occurs at sea, the disposition of the remains shall be handled or dealt with in accordance
with the masters best judgment. In all cases, the employer/master shall communicate
with the manning agency to advise for disposition of seafarers remains.
c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippines 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. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
CASE HISTORY:
Anita, for herself and on behalf of their children, Charmaine, Charlene, and Charl Smith,
all surnamed Canuel (petitioners) filed a complaint against Magsaysay and Kotani, as well
as Magsaysays Manager/President, Eduardo U. Manese before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking to recover death benefits, death compensation of
minor children, burial allowance, damages, and attorneys fees.
Respondents denied any liability and contended that while Nancing died of acute
respiratory failure, the real cause of his death, as shown in the autopsy conducted by the
National Bureau of Investigation, was "moderately differentiated andenocarcinoma,
pneumonia and pulmonary edema, lung tissue" or lung cancer. The said illness is not
work-related per advise of their company doctor, Dr. Marie Cherry Lyn Samson- Fernando,
hence, not compensable.
Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioners and thereby ordered respondents to pay
them.
At odds with the LA Ruling, respondents appealed to the NLRC.
Respondents appeal was denied by the NLRC.
Dissatisfied, respondents sought reconsideration but were denied
The case was elevated to the CA on certiorari.2
CA found that the NLRC Ruling was tainted with grave abuse of discretion and, thus,
rendered a new judgment dismissing petitioners complaint for death benefits.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration therefrom was denied by the CA. Hence, the instant
petition.
Page 8 of 17
RULING:
Yes. Private respondents cannot deny liability for the subject death by claiming that the seafarers
death occurred beyond the term of his employment and worsely, that there has been
misrepresentation on the part of the seafarer. For, as employer, the private respondents had all
the opportunity to pre-qualify, thoroughly screen and choose their applicants to determine if they
are medically, psychologically and mentally fit for employment. That the seafarer here was
subjected to the required prequalification standards before he was admitted as Cook-Steward, it
thus has to be safely presumed that the late Remo was in a good state of health when he boarded
the vessel.
More recently, in the 2013 case of Inter-Orient Maritime, Incorporated v. Candava, also decided
under the framework of the 1996 POEA-SEC, the Court pronounced that the seafarers death
therein, despite occurring after his repatriation, remains "compensable for having been caused
by an illness duly established to have been contracted in the course of his employment."
Thus, considering the constitutional mandate on labor as well as relative jurisprudential context,
the rule, restated for a final time, should be as follows: if the seafarers work-related injury or
illness (that eventually causes his medical repatriation and, thereafter, his death, as in this case)
occurs during the term of his employment, then the employer becomes liable for death
compensation benefits under Section 20 (A) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. The provision cannot be
construed otherwise for to do so would not only transgress prevailing constitutional policy and
deride the bearings of relevant case law but also result in a travesty of fairness and an indifference
to social justice.
For all these reasons, the Court hereby grants the petition.
OPINION:
The Court did a great job in deciding, in detail, how the claimants are entitled benefits from the
death of their loved one. The court should always give logical and realistic interpretation of the
law as to the case whether the disease is work related. Our Labor Law is very specific in
enumerating the coverage for work-related illnesses, however, logic would give due course to
when a situation is not as literal as the law says but is the same in spirit.
Page 9 of 17
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION and/or WASTFEL-LARSEN MANAGEMENT A/S

v. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA
G.R. No. 177578
January 25, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent Lobusta was hired by the petitioner as a seaman but was repatriated. Sometime
during his employment, respondent complained of breathing difficulty and back pain. He was
admitted to a hospital and was diagnosed to be suffering from severe acute bronchial asthma
with secondary infection and lumbosacral muscle strain. Respondent was examined by another
doctor and said that he needs a surgery, called decompression laminectomy, which was done.
The doctor also issued another medical report stating that Lobustas obstructive airway disease
needs to be monitored regularly and needs to be on bronchodilator indefinitely. The suggestion
was not heeded and Lobusta's treatment continued.
The respondent attended several check-ups and was diagnosed to have a moderate obstructive
pulmonary disease which tends to be a chronic problem.
The parties, to confirm the real condition, asked another doctor to reexamine the respondent and
said that the respondent is not physically fit to resume his normal work as a seaman due to the
persistence of his symptoms; that his asthma will remain chronically active and will be marked by
intermittent exacerbations; and that he needs multiple controller medications for his asthma.
After the parties failed to settle how much is entitled to the respondent, petitioner, again,
suggested that Lobusta be examined by another company-designated doctor for an independent
medical examination. The parties agreed that it would be considered final. However, the doctor
said that he cant be considered fit to return to work as a seaman.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents illness is considered as total and permanent disability.
LAW:
Labor Code of the Philippines

ART. 192. Permanent total disability. x x x
xxxx
(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:
(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days,
except as otherwise provided in the Rules;
Implementing Rules of Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended, or the Amended Rules
on Employees Compensation Commission (ECC Rules
Sec. 2. Disability. x x x
Page 10 of 17
(b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee
is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days,
except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.
xxxx
Section 2, Rule X of the ECC Rules reads:
SEC. 2. Period of entitlement. (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the
first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer
than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical
attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which
case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare
the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total
disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or
mental functions as determined by the System.
CASE HISTORY:
No settlement was reached despite medical findings, the Labor Arbiter ordered the parties
to file their respective position papers.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the respondent and considered his
condition as permanent partial disability since Labor Code on permanent total disability
do not apply to overseas seafarers, which the NLRC affirmed.
CA ruled that Lobusta's disability brought about by his bronchial asthma is permanent and
total disability.
RULING:
The Supreme Court agrees with the CA that Lobusta suffered permanent total disability. On this
point, the NLRC ruling was not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
In this case, the respondent was unable to work for more than 120 days (May 22, 1998 to
December 16, 1999 which is 19 months or 570 days) as prescribed by law, hence it should be
considered as a permanent and total disability defined under the Labor Code. Moreover, the Court
held in the case of Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission that unfitness to work for 11-
13 months was considered permanent total disability.
Petition is denied.
OPINION:
Worth mentioning in this case is the special note of the Supreme Court to the Labor Arbiter
as to his lapses in answering and the errors in its decision. This is as if the Supreme Court
is scolding the LA for inefficiency in doing his job. Clearly, should the LA decided on this
case at his level, this does not have to go through other tribunals, lest the SC. Thus saving
time and resources of everyone. This is like the SC calling out the LA of the importance
of its job because this affects lives of our workers. Delay in the proper adjudication of
each case is delayed justice for the worker who could have claimed compensation earlier,
and thus utilized the same for his medical needs.
Page 11 of 17
CONCHITA J. RACELIS, Petitioner, vs. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. and/or

HOLLAND AMERICA LINES, INC.,* and FERNANDO T. LISING, Respondents.
G.R. No. 198408
November 12, 2014
FACTS:
Rodolfo L. Racelis was recruited and hired by respondent United Philippine Lines, Inc. for its
principal, respondent Holland America Lines,Inc. to serve as "Demi Chef De Partie" on board the
vessel MS Prinsendam, with a basic monthly salary of US$799.55. The Contract of Employment
was for a term of four (4) months, extendible for another two (2) months upon mutual consent.
After complying with the required pre-employment medical examination where he was declared
fit to work, Rodolfo joined the vessel on January 25, 2008. Prior thereto, Rodolfo was repeatedly
contracted by said respondents and was deployed under various contracts since December 17,
1985.
In the course of his last employment contract, Rodolfo experienced severe pain in his ears and
high blood pressure causing him to collapse while in the performance of his duties. He consulted
a doctor in Argentina and was medically repatriated on February 20, 2008for further medical
treatment. Upon arrival in Manila, he was immediately brought to Medical City, Pasig City, where
he was seen by a company-designated physician, Dr. Gerardo Legaspi, M.D. (Dr.Legaspi), and
was diagnosed to be suffering from Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation. He underwent
surgery twice for the said ailment but developed complications and died on March 2,
2008. Through an electronic mail (e-mail) dated July 22, 2008, a certain Dr. Antonio "Toby" Abaya
(Dr. Abaya) informed Atty. Florencio L. Aquino, Managing Associate of the law firm of Del Rosario
and Del Rosario, counsel for UPL, HAL, and itsofficer, Fernando T. Lising (respondents), that
Rodolfos illness was congenital and that there may be familial strains in his case, hence, his death
was not work-related.
ISSUE:
LAW:
2000 POEASEC:
1. In the case of work-related death of the seafarer,during the term of his contractthe
supplied)
Page 12 of 17
After an assiduous examination of the records, and as will be expounded on below, the
Court, similar to both the LA and the NLRC, finds that the above-stated requirements
positively attend petitioners claim for death benefits.
I. The Death of the Seafarer is Work-Related.
In the recent case of Canuel v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation48 (Canuel), the Court
clarified that the term "work-related death"refers to the seafarers death resulting from a
work-related injury or illness.
Under the 2000 POEA-SEC, the terms "work-related injury" and "work-related illness" are,
inturn, defined as follows:
Definition of Terms:
For purposes of this contract, the following terms are defined as follows:
xxxx
11. Work-Related Injury injury(ies) resulting indisability or death arising out of and in
the course of employment.
12. Work-Related Illness any sickness resulting todisability or deathas a result of an

occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set
therein satisfied. (Emphases supplied)
CASE HISTORY:
Petitioner sought to claim death benefits pursuant to the International Transport Workers
Federation- Collective Bargaining Agreement (ITWF-CBA), of which her husband was a
member, but to no avail. Consequently, she filed a Complaint for death benefits, burial
assistance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees against herein respondents
before the NLRC
In their defense, respondents maintained that petitioner is not entitled to death. They
averred that Rodolfos illness, i.e., Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation, was not
work-related, considering that said illness is not listed as an occupational disease under
the 2000 POEASEC.
Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioner, and thereby ordered respondents to pay
her death benefits, burial assistance, and attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total
monetary awards.
Unconvinced, respondents filed an appeal before the NLRC.
The NLRC affirmed the LAs verdict
Dissatisfied, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
NLRC; hence, they elevated the matter to the CA viaa petition for certiorari.
CA granted respondents certiorari petition, and thereby annulled and set aside the ruling
of the NLRC granting petitioners claim for death benefits.
Hence, the instant petition.
Page 13 of 17
RULING:
They are entitled to benefits. While it is true that hyperthyroidism is not listed as an occupational
disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Nonetheless, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4)
of the said POEA-SECstates that "those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are
disputably presumed as workrelated." The said provision explicitly establishes a presumption of
compensability although disputable by substantial evidence. The presumption operates in favor
of Laurel as the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption. Hence,
unless contrary evidence is presented by the seafarers employer/s, this disputable presumption
stands. In the case at bench, other than the alleged declaration of the attending physician that
Laurels illness was not work-related, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden. In fact, they
even conceded that hyperthyroidism may be caused by environmental factor
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 28, 2011 and the Resolution
dated August 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 113835 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the Decision
OPINION:
The decision given by the court is proper given that the NLRCs ruling was fully supported by the
evidence on record and current jurisprudence on the subject matter. It is the duty of the court to
make sure that what is due the beneficiaries are given to them. It is the least the law can provide
to lessen the pain of losing a loved one.
Page 14 of 17
UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LINK MARINE PTE. LTD. and/or VICTORIANO
B. TIROL, III,Petitioners, vs. DELIA MALIPOT, in behalf of GLICERIO
MALIPOT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206562
January 21, 2015
FACTS:
Rodolfo L. Racelis was recruited and hired by respondent United Philippine Lines, Inc. for its
principal, respondent Holland America Lines,Inc. to serve as "Demi Chef De Partie" on board the
vessel MS Prinsendam, with a basic monthly salary of US$799.55. The Contract of Employment
was for a term of four (4) months, extendible for another two (2) months upon mutual consent.
After complying with the required pre-employment medical examination where he was declared
fit to work, Rodolfo joined the vessel on January 25, 2008. Prior thereto, Rodolfo was repeatedly
contracted by said respondents and was deployed under various contracts since December 17,
1985.
In the course of his last employment contract, Rodolfo experienced severe pain in his ears and
high blood pressure causing him to collapse while in the performance of his duties. He consulted
a doctor in Argentina and was medically repatriated on February 20, 2008for further medical
treatment. Upon arrival in Manila, he was immediately brought to Medical City, Pasig City, where
he was seen by a company-designated physician, Dr. Gerardo Legaspi, M.D. (Dr.Legaspi), and
was diagnosed to be suffering from Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation. He underwent
surgery twice for the said ailment but developed complications and died on March 2,
2008. Through an electronic mail (e-mail) dated July 22, 2008, a certain Dr. Antonio "Toby" Abaya
(Dr. Abaya) informed Atty. Florencio L. Aquino, Managing Associate of the law firm of Del Rosario
and Del Rosario, counsel for UPL, HAL, and itsofficer, Fernando T. Lising (respondents), that
Rodolfos illness was congenital and that there may be familial strains in his case, hence, his death
was not work-related.
ISSUE:
LAW:
2000 POEASEC:
1. In the case of work-related death of the seafarer,during the term of his contractthe
supplied)
Page 15 of 17
After an assiduous examination of the records, and as will be expounded on below, the
Court, similar to both the LA and the NLRC, finds that the above-stated requirements
positively attend petitioners claim for death benefits.
I. The Death of the Seafarer is Work-Related.
In the recent case of Canuel v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation48 (Canuel), the Court
clarified that the term "work-related death"refers to the seafarers death resulting from a
work-related injury or illness.
Under the 2000 POEA-SEC, the terms "work-related injury" and "work-related illness" are,
inturn, defined as follows:
Definition of Terms:
For purposes of this contract, the following terms are defined as follows:
xxxx
11. Work-Related Injury injury(ies) resulting indisability or death arising out of and in
the course of employment.
12. Work-Related Illness any sickness resulting todisability or deathas a result of an

occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set
therein satisfied. (Emphases supplied)
CASE HISTORY:
Petitioner sought to claim death benefits pursuant to the International Transport Workers
Federation- Collective Bargaining Agreement (ITWF-CBA), of which her husband was a
member, but to no avail. Consequently, she filed a Complaint for death benefits, burial
assistance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees against herein respondents
before the NLRC
In their defense, respondents maintained that petitioner is not entitled to death. They
averred that Rodolfos illness, i.e., Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation, was not
work-related, considering that said illness is not listed as an occupational disease under
the 2000 POEASEC.
Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioner, and thereby ordered respondents to pay
her death benefits, burial assistance, and attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total
monetary awards.
Unconvinced, respondents filed an appeal before the NLRC.
The NLRC affirmed the LAs verdict
Dissatisfied, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
NLRC; hence, they elevated the matter to the CA viaa petition for certiorari.
CA granted respondents certiorari petition, and thereby annulled and set aside the ruling
of the NLRC granting petitioners claim for death benefits.
Hence, the instant petition.
Page 16 of 17
RULING:
They are entitled to benefits. While it is true that hyperthyroidism is not listed as an occupational
disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Nonetheless, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4)
of the said POEA-SECstates that "those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are
disputably presumed as workrelated." The said provision explicitly establishes a presumption of
compensability although disputable by substantial evidence. The presumption operates in favor
of Laurel as the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption. Hence,
unless contrary evidence is presented by the seafarers employer/s, this disputable presumption
stands. In the case at bench, other than the alleged declaration of the attending physician that
Laurels illness was not work-related, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden. In fact, they
even conceded that hyperthyroidism may be caused by environmental factor
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 28, 2011 and the Resolution
dated August 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 113835 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the Decision
OPINION:
The decision given by the court is proper given that the NLRCs ruling was fully supported by the
evidence on record and current jurisprudence on the subject matter. It is the duty of the court to
make sure that what is due the beneficiaries are given to them. It is the least the law can provide
to lessen the pain of losing a loved one.
Page 17 of 17

Cases - Labor Standards

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cases - Labor Standards

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Labor Standards under Usec. Josephus B.

Death Benefits under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

The Benefits Due to Respondent

WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., and REGINALDO OBEN/WALLEM

Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC provides:

No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity,

No. Respondents are not entitled to compensation.

Whether payment death and illness benefits is due.

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION and/or WASTFEL-LARSEN MANAGEMENT A/S

Labor Code of the Philippines

CONCHITA J. RACELIS, Petitioner, vs. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. and/or

Whether payment death and illness benefits is due.

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

I. The Death of the Seafarer is Work-Related.

12. Work-Related Illness any sickness resulting todisability or deathas a result of an

Whether payment death and illness benefits is due.

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

I. The Death of the Seafarer is Work-Related.

12. Work-Related Illness any sickness resulting todisability or deathas a result of an

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen