SEAPOWER SHIPPING ENT., INC. vs. HEIRS OF WARREN M.

SABANAL,
represented by ELVIRA ONG-SABANAL

G.R. No. 198544: June 19, 2017: J. JARDELEZA

(Not all cases should be decided in favor of labor; Justice is, in every case, for the
deserving; the court should not cause injustice to the employer.)

FACTS:

Petitioner hired Warren Sabanal as third mate of MT Montana. For some time during
voyage, Sabanal started exhibiting unusual behavior. When the ship captain
checked on him, he responded incoherently, though it appeared that he had
problems with his brother in the Philippines. This prompted the captain to set double
guards on Sabanal. Because of Sabanal 's condition, the captain relieved him of his
shift and allowed him to sleep in the cabin guarded. The following day, the captain
wanted to supervise Sabanal better, so he took him on deck and assigned to him
simple tasks, such as correcting maps and collecting and typing the crew's
declarations. The captain observed that Sabanal's condition was "rather better" and
he "did not appear to have any problems." Later that day, Sabanal requested the
sailor-on-guard that he be allowed to return to the deck for some fresh air. Once on
deck, Sabanal suddenly ran to the stem and jumped to the sea. The ship's rescue
attempts proved futile, and Sabanal's body was never recovered.

Petitioner informed Sabanal's wife, Elvira regarding the incident. Eventually,

Respondent Heirs of the seafarer filed a claim for death benefits. The petitioner
however raised the defense of non-compensability of death resulting from suicide.

ISSUE:

Whether the exemption extends to the case when the seafarer had been acting
strangely prior to jumping into the sea.

LAW APPLICABLE:

1989 POEA "Revised Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of

All Filipino Seamen On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels" (POEA-SEC)

CASE HISTORY:

On May 16, 2005, Elvira filed a complaint for payment of Sabanal' s death benefits.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Elvira's case on the grounds of prescription and lack of
merit.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the dismissal but on a different basis. It held that
when the death of the seaman resulted from his own willful act, the death is not
compensable.

The Court of Appeals granted the claim and held that seafarer’s strange conduct
prior to jumping off ship would show that he was not in a proper mental state and as
such, his jumping off the ship cannot be considered as a willful act. As such, the
heirs of the seafarer should be entitled to death benefits.

The CA subsequently denied Seapower's motion for reconsideration.

RULING:

Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.

Under the POEA-SEC, the employer is generally liable for death compensation
benefits when a seafarer dies during the term of employment. This rule, however, is
not absolute. Part II, Section C (6) of the POEA-SEC exempts the employer from
liability if it can successfully prove that the seafarer's death was caused by an injury
directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act.

Evidence of insanity or mental sickness may be presented to negate the requirement

of willfulness as a matter of counter-defense.

The case shows that since the seafarer Sabanal' s death happened during the term
of the employment contract, the burden is therefore on the employer to prove by
substantial evidence that Sabanal' s death was directly attributable to his deliberate
or willful act.

But if the claimant alleges that the seafarer is of unsound mind, the burden of
evidence is then shifted to the claimant. The question, that whether Sabanal has lost
full control of his faculties when he jumped overboard. Or, more precisely, whether
his unusual behavior prior to the incident is such substantial evidence.

Observations from the ship log and the captain shows that Sabanal did not appear to
have any problems while performing simple tasks and did not show any signs of
unrest immediately before the incident. These circumstances, coupled with the legal
presumption of sanity, tend to belie Elvira's claim that Sabanal no longer exercised
any control over his own senses and mental faculties. Elvira in this case, failed to
present any evidence to substantiate her claim.
While it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the
provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of
Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels,
still, the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in
the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.

OPINION:

Determination of unsoundness of mind as to mere unwillfulness is too thin a line to

be identified. And prevention comes of late when a tragedy manifests. The partaking
of one’s duty should always be coupled with the awareness of the risk to be taken.
The seafarer’s profession requires having the mental fortitude of withstanding the
hazards of the great ocean. But the ever changing times and environment provides
with unknown possibilities that left us unguarded for its arrival and thereby
expanding the strength required of the mind.

INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (IPAMS), SNC

LAVALIN ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C.
HERNANDEZ vs JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B. ARRIOLA

G.R. No. 205703: March 07, 2016: J. MENDOZA

FACTS:

Arriola was offered by SNC-Lavalin, the position of Safety Officer in its Ambatovy
Project site in Madagascar. Arriola was then hired by SNC-Lavalin, through its local
manning agency, IPAMS, and his overseas employment contract was processed
with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). Arriola started working in
Madagascar.

After three months, Arriola received a notice of pre-termination of employment from

SNC-Lavalin due to diminishing workload in the area of his expertise and the
unavailability of alternative assignments. Consequently, Arriola was repatriated.

Aggrieved, Arriola filed a complaint against the petitioners for illegal dismissal.

The petitioners denied the charge of illegal dismissal against them. The petitioners
continued that the pre-termination of Arriola's contract was valid for being consistent
with the provisions of both the Expatriate Policy and laws of Canada. The said
foreign law did not require any ground for early termination of employment, and the
only requirement was the written notice of termination. Even assuming that
Philippine laws should apply, Arriola would still be validly dismissed because
domestic law recognized retrenchment and redundancy as legal grounds for
termination.

ISSUE:

Do Philippine laws apply to overseas employment contracts?

LAW APPLICABLE:

R.A. No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers Act, was enacted to institute the policies on
overseas employment and to establish a higher standard of protection and
promotion of the welfare of migrant workers. It emphasized that while recognizing
the significant contribution of Filipino migrant workers to the national economy
through their foreign exchange remittances, the State does not promote overseas
employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national
development. Although it acknowledged claims arising out of law or contract
involving Filipino workers, it does not categorically provide that foreign laws are
absolutely and automatically applicable in overseas employment contracts.

Section 3, Article XIII states that the State shall afford full protection to labor,
whether local or overseas. Hence, even if the OFW has his employment abroad, it
does not strip him of his rights to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and
a living wage under our Constitution.

CASE HISTORY:

The Labor arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint. However, the NLRC reversed the
LA decision and ruled that Arriola was illegally dismissed by the petitioners stating
that whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoyed the
protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to
the contrary notwithstanding.

On appeal, the CA affirmed and explained that even though an authenticated copy
of the ESA was submitted, it did not mean that the said foreign law automatically
applied in this case. Although parties were free to establish stipulations in their
contracts, the same must remain consistent with law, morals, good custom, public
order or public policy.

RULING:
OPINION: