THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 206562, January 21, 2015
UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LINK MARINE PTE. LTD. AND/OR VICTORIANO B. TIROL, III, Petitioners, v. DELIA MALIPOT, IN BEHALF OF GLICERIO MALIPOT, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
[Respondent] Delia Malipot, in behalf of her deceased husband seaman Glicerio, is therefore entitled to death benefits and burial expenses pursuant to Section 20 (A) (1) and (4c) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which provide:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryor in Philippine currency at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment.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.There is no dispute that seaman Glicerio had two (2) legitimate minor children who, in addition to the death benefits of US$50,000.00, are entitled to US$7,000 each, plus burial allowance of US$1,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
c. 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.
There is merit in [respondent]’s claim that she is entitled to attorney’s fees because she was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect her rights and interests because of the unjust, unfair and totally unlawful acts of the [petitioners] in refusing to pay her claims. The same finds ample basis on Art. 2208, par. 2 of the Civil Code, which provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryArt. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered holding the above-named [petitioners] Unicol Maritime Services, Inc. and Victoriano B. Tirol III liable, jointly and severally, to pay [respondent] the following amounts:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interests;
1. US$50,000 - Death Benefits 2. US$14,000 - Death benefits for the two (2) minor children 3. US$1,000 - Burial Expenses US$65,000 - Total 4. US$6,500 - 10% Attorney’s fees US$71,500.00 - Grand Total
As such, there being no evidence to the contrary, We find that Glicerio Malipot in fact committed suicide. The Labor Arbiter thus seriously erred in ruling that there is no certainty as to the cause of Glicerio’s death when the above documents clearly provided otherwise. In the same Great Southern Maritime case, the Supreme Court noted:Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the same was denied and the dismissal of the claim for death benefits was affirmed by the NLRC in a Resolution dated December 30, 2010.
Indeed, we are not unaware of our ruling in Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc. v. Cuaresma, where we held that Jasmin Cuaresma, also an overseas Filipino worker, did not commit suicide; that Filipinos are resilient people, willing to take on sacrifices for the good of their family; and that we do not easily succumb to hardships and difficulties. Nevertheless, the circumstances prevailing in said case are totally different from this case. In Becmen, the postmortem examination and the police report did not state with specificity that poisoning or suicide was the cause of Jasmin‘s death. In fact, both reports mentioned that the cause of death of Jasmin was still under investigation. In contrast, the postmortem examination and the police report in this case, categorically mentioned that Salvador died of asphyxia due to hanging. It was also shown that no other individual could have caused the death of Salvador because the bathroom door was locked or bolted from the inside and could not be opened from the outside.
x x x x
As such, herein [respondent] is not entitled to any death benefits nor to attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Another one entered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.7
Apart from the Medico-Legal Report and Death Certificate, there is no showing that [petitioners] exerted effort to ascertain the circumstances surrounding Glicerio’s death which was their duty to undertake as employer. As held by the Labor Arbiter, the Medico-Legal Report and Death Certificate are only evidence of the cause of death, but not of the circumstances surrounding Glicerio’s death. While [petitioners] submitted an Investigation Report, log book extracts, and Master’s Report, these were belatedly submitted on appeal to the NLRC via a Supplemental Memorandum of Appeal, yet, there is no indication that these are newly discovered evidence. Worse, a reading of these documents does not show the actual circumstances which surrounded Glicerio’s death, for even the Investigation Report merely stated: “The local Fujairah Police is presently carrying out an investigation into the likely cause of death.”Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration against said Decision, but the same proved futile as it was denied by the CA in a Resolution9 dated March 27, 2013.
[Petitioners] presented these reports to highlight Glicerio’s supposed “family problems” which allegedly drove him to commit suicide. However, this supposition is contradicted by Glicerio’s yearning to go home, as related to his wife during their conversations. Also, [petitioners] alleged that Glicerio’s Contract of Employment was supposed to end on February 18, 2009 as his contract was for 4-6 months. In contrast though, Glicerio’s Seabased Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) sheet stated that his contract duration is for “4 months, 0 days,” so his contract should have ended on December 18, 2008. But whether it was in December or in February that Glicerio was slated to go home, We cannot subscribe to the idea that he decided to commit suicide at a time that was already so near the end of his contract. It is beyond human comprehension that a seaman who wanted to go home so badly would simply take his life for no reason at all.
x x x x
We also note that Delia executed a Quitclaim and Release in consideration of the sum of Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four and 00/100 (Usd 12,254.00) US Dollars. But it has already been held that where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily and with full understanding of what he is doing and the consideration of the quitclaim is credible, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. But where the consideration for the quitclaim is inordinately low and exceedingly unreasonable, the quitclaim cannot be considered as an obstacle to the pursuit of legitimate claims. Noting that the consideration of the quitclaim, US$12,254.00, is inordinately low compared to the US$71,500.00 awarded by the Labor Arbiter, We find it, therefore, to be palpably inequitable. However, to avoid any unjust enrichment here, the amount received by Delia must be deducted from the monetary award.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 30, 2010 Decision and December 30, 2010 Resolution are SET ASIDE. The September 14, 2009 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of US$12,254.00 which Delia received from [petitioners] is hereby ordered deducted from the award of US$71,500.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from September 14, 2009, the date of the Labor Arbiter’s judgment, until the finality of this decision, and thereafter at the rate of 12% per annum until full payment.
SO ORDERED.8
THE RECORDS OF THIS CASE IS REPLETE WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT SEAFARER GLICERIO MALIPOT COMMITTED SUICIDE, YET THE COURT OF APPEALS DEATH BENEFITS RULING (sic) THAT “THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT HEREIN PETITIONERS EXERTED EFFORTS TO ASCERTAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING GLICERIO’S DEATH.”In essence, the main issue for resolution is whether seaman Glicerio committed suicide during the term of his employment contract which would exempt petitioners from paying the death compensation benefits to his beneficiaries.
IS DEATH BY SUICIDE COMPENSABLE UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT?10
Normally, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. However, since the findings of the CA and the NLRC were conflicting, it is incumbent upon this Court to wade through the records to find out if there was enough basis for the CA’s reversal of the NLRC decision.
(1) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;17 (6) When in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.18
From the foregoing, it can be inferred that there was no foul play regarding seaman Glicerio’s suicide considering that an external examination of his body shows no violence or resistance or any external injuries. In fact, the post-mortem examination conclusively established that the true cause of death was suicidal asphyxia due to hanging.Medico-Legal Report on Case No. 2/2009/Casualties
In accordance with the letter of the Director of Fujairah Public Prosecution dated 09.07.2006 to carry out the external examination on the remains of Mr. Glicerio Ramirez [M]alipot, Filipino national, to show the reason of death and how death occurred, I, Prof. Dr. Osman Abdul Hameed Awad, medico-legal senior consultant in Fujairah, hereby certify that I carried out the external examination on the aforementioned body on 15.01.2009 at Fujairah Hospital Postmortem. I also reviewed the minutes of investigations. Moreover, I hereby decide the following:
A) External Examination:
The body is for a man aging about 56 years, in a saprophytic state because of being in the refrigerator along with blood precipitation in the upper and lower limbs. I noticed a deep lacerated groove transverse in the front of the neck and upper the level of the thyroid gristle with 2 cm width, going up and to the two sides of the neck and disappears beneath the ear along with the emergence of the tongue outside the mouth. I did not notice any recent injuries in the body.
B) Opinion:
Based on the above, I decide the following:
1) Based on the external examination of the body of the aforementioned deceased a deep lacerated groove round the neck. It (sic) vital and recent. It occurs as a result of pressure and hanging with an elastic body such as a rope or similar.
2) The death is due to suicidal Asphyxia due to hanging.
3) The time of death synchronizes with the given date.26
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSClearly, the employer is liable to pay the heirs of the deceased seafarer for death benefits once it is established that he died during the effectivity of his employment contract. However, 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.28 Thus, since petitioners were able to substantially prove that seaman Glicerio’s death is directly attributable to his deliberate act of hanging himself, his death, therefore, is not compensable and his heirs not entitled to any compensation or benefits.
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
x x x x
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATHx x x x
- 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 at the time of payment.
D. No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.27
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 15-36.
2Id. at 38.
3 CA rollo, pp. 36-44.
4Id. at 34-35.
5Id. at 127-138.
6Id. at 137-138.
7Id. at 43-44.
8Rollo, pp. 32-36. (Emphases omitted)
9Id. at 38.
10Id. at 43.
11Id. at 92-93
12Id. at 97.
13Id. at 94-96.
14Id. at 90-91.
15Id. at 89.
16 Section 1. Filing of petition with the Supreme Court. – A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
17 Emphasis supplied.
18Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 171982, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 404, 414. (Emphasis ours)
19 590 Phil. 685 (2008).
20Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 4th Division, supra, at 701-702.
21 Art. 218 (2).
22 Art. 218 (3).
23See Malayang Manggagawa nd Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 155306, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 24, 41; Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 367 Phil. 259, 263 (1999).
24Univac Development, Inc. v. Soriano, G.R. No. 182072, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 88, 97.
25Rollo, p. 99.
26Id. at 92-93.
27 Emphasis supplied.
28Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang, G.R. No. 151993, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 526, 536.
29Crewlink, Inc. v. Teringtering, G.R. No. 166803, October 11, 2012, 684 SCRA 12, 21-22.