Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
NATURE OF PETITION
THE PARTIES
1|Page
be served with notices, orders, resolution and other legal processes of this
Honorable Court or thru the undersigned counsel.
That on this day, or on due time, and within the period allowed by the
Rules to file a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, petitioners filed this instant Petition for Review and corresponding
(a) Courts Docket, legal and research fees, and the necessary (b) Deposit for
costs has been paid by the petitioners, under Official Receipt No. (s) 5305249
B, 5312567 C, & 7781146 T.
2|Page
On July 01, 2013, Danilo Dumogho boarded the vessel M/V RM
POWER in Matadi, Congo Republic, and performed his duties as Bosun.
On 01 August 2013, as borne by the records from the Ship Masters
Private Statement, the crewmembers heard a person shouting on the aft of the
vessel. They immediately run to the stern and A/B Delos Santos Rey saw
bosun Mr. Danilo Dumogho in the river waters trying to swim. After that he
run to the cargo office and raised the alarm on public address phone, shouting
very loudly at least four times Man over board, alarm regarding that a crew
member of the vessel RM POWER fell into the river waters. Chief Mate
Recovita Alexandra saw a man on the river waters at approximately 200
meters away from the vessel and that he threw a life buoy ring as close as
possible to the man. Captain Radu Nicolae immediately called through VHF
the MV Vessel Fiskardo (anchored astern of us) in order to try to make a look
out in the waters. After that, he informed the local authorities and requested
for immediate help. After five or ten minutes, two coast guard fast boats came
and started the search of the missing crew member.
3|Page
1) The disappearance and presumptive loss of life of Danilo Dumogho
occurred at worksite and during the effectivity of his employment
contract entitles her to the death benefits in the amount of
$93,154.00 (USD) under Appendix 5 of the PNO IBF Collective
Bargaining Agreement for 2013;
4|Page
of four (4) years from the time Danilo Dumogho was declared
missing. In this case, complainant filed the position paper only after
nine (9) months had passed from the absence of Danilo. Pantollano
vs. Korphil Shipmanagement and Manning Corporation supports
this conclusion; and
After scrutiny of the merits of the case, Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Allan
S. Montao rendered a decision dated 20 February 2015, the decretal portion
of which reads:
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
5|Page
PETITIONERS, conformably to the nature of the instant Petition and out of
the issues taken, hereby present the following ground in support of and relied
upon for the allowance of the instant Petition:
I.
II.
DISCUSSION
I.
The records show that the respondents failed to establish the first element.
To be entitled to the rights and benefits provided by the CBA, it is incumbent
upon the respondents to show by substantial evidence the death of Bosun
Dumogho under the circumstances. Imelda Pantollano vs. Korphil Ship
1
Imelda Relucio vs. Angelina Mejia Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, January 16, 2002.
6|Page
Management and Manning Corporation2 is squarely applicable in the case at
bar. Here, Vedasto, a Ship Engineer, was reported missing when he did not
show up for duty. The Master of the Vessel and some crew members also
conducted a search and rescue operation but failed to locate him. Vedasto was
never seen again, so Imelda filed a claim for death benefits with the company.
Korphil refused to grant the benefits, alleging that the money claim has
already prescribed. In ruling in favor of Imelda, the Supreme Court said that
prescription has not yet set in because the cause of action accrued only four
years after the disappearance of Vedasto. It was only after four years when
the presumption of death arose. In other words, there is no cause of action yet
within the four year-period after Vedastos disappearance.
In the present case, the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that the death of Mr.
Dumogho was shown by preponderant evidence. The Voluntary Arbitrator
relied on the narration by the Ships Master, Capt. Filip Florin, and on the
Preliminary Advice Report of the Marine Surveyor, Capt. Guillermo Bottari
in arriving at such conclusion. However, two essential circumstances included
in these reports were overlooked. First, the life buoy thrown to save Mr.
Dumogho was never retrieved, giving rise to the possibility that he was in fact
saved. Second, the Preliminary Advice Report explicitly stated that Mr.
Dumogho was just missing. When these two circumstances concur, a
reasonable mind cannot not discredit the possibility that Mr. Dumogho may
in fact be alive. The moral certainty that Mr. Dumogho died at the time he fell
overboard ceased to exist. At most, the narration by Capt. Florin only
established the identity of Mr. Domogho as the one who fell overboard the
vessel, as well as the actions of the ships crew when they found out that
someone was in the open waters.
Article 390-391 of the Civil Code then should apply. In other words, the
law requires an absence of four years from the time of disappearance to give
rise to the presumption of death, except for purpose of succession. It is after
the lapse of four years that the cause of action of the respondents shall accrue.
2
G.R. No. 169575, March 30, 2011
7|Page
the death of the employee must be due to causes other than his or her willful
act. In invoking Article 26.1 of the CBA as the source of her right,
Complainant-Appellant argues that the death of Mr. Dumogho is sufficient to
be entitled to death and burial benefits. But Article 26.1 is clear:
In containing the provision that the death of the employee must not be
due to his willful acts, the CBA recognizes that the death of an employee while
in the employment of the company may be due to a willful cause or other
causes. If the cause is willful, the employee is not entitled to any benefit. If it
is due to other causes, including natural causes or marine or similar peril, the
employee is entitled thereto. It is necessary to prove therefore, a least by
substantial evidence, that circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Dumogho
sufficiently excludes the possibility that he attempted to cause death to himself
willfully. The narration by Captain Florin and the Preliminary Advice Report
by Capt. Bottari does not exclude this possibility. Mr. Dumogho was seen by
the ships crew when he was already in the open waters. What is peculiar in
this case is that there was no showing that Mr. Dumogho, at the time he was
found, was asking for help to be saved. This bolsters the theory that he may
have wilfully cause death to himself.
The provisions of the CBA are clear. The distinction therein as to the
cause of death by the seafarer is explicit and unambiguous. It is incumbent
upon the respondents to prove by substantial evidence that the cause of death
of Mr. Dumogho is not due to his willful act. Any ruling to the contrary will
render useless the provisions of the CBA which has the force of law between
the parties.
II
8|Page
The Honorable Voluntary Arbitrator gravely erred in ruling that
Complainant-Appellee is entitled to Attorneys Fees
The case of Heirs of the Late Delfin Dela Cruz vs. Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc.3 is analogous to the present case. The Supreme Court said, the
Court has consistently held that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of
damages based on the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to
litigate. Suffice it to say that the authority of the court to award attorney's fees
under Article 2208 of the Civil Code requires factual, legal, and equitable
grounds. They cannot be awarded absent a showing of bad faith in a party's
tenacity in pursuing his case even if his belief in his stance is specious. Verily,
being compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect
one's rights is not a sufficient reason for granting attorney's fees.
For lack of sufficient basis and lack of gross and evident bad faith on the
part of the petitioners, the award for attorneys fees should therefore be
deleted.
3
G.R. No. 196357, April 20, 2015
9|Page
10 | P a g e