THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 184933, April 13, 2016
VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA, BOTH SURNAMED BALBA, Petitioners, v. TIWALA HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME CORP., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by the legal heirs (collectively referred to as the petitioners) of the late Rogelio Balba (Rogelio), seeking to annul and set aside the Decision2 dated May 31, 2007 and the Resolution3 dated October 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93606. The CA reversed the Decision4 dated December 28, 2004 and Resolution5 dated December 22, 2005 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NLRC NCR CA No. 033946-02, and reinstated the Decision6 dated September 25, 2002 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), in NLRC NCR OFW Case No. 00-04-0683-00, which dismissed the claim of Rogelio for disability benefits for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED ordering respondents to jointly and severally pay [the petitioners] the amount of US$60,000.00 representing the death benefits of [Rogelio] plus US$7,000.00 each for the two minor children and US$1,000.00 as burial benefits or in a total amount of US$75,000.00, plus 5% thereof as attorney's fees.The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution17 dated December 22, 2005. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition with the CA and alleged that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC in awarding benefits to the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated December 28, 2004 and the Resolution dated December 22, 2005 of the [NLRC] in NLRC NCR CA NO. 033946-02 (NLRC NCR OFW CASE NO. 00-04-0683-00) are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution20 dated October 14, 2008. Undaunted, the petitioners filed the instant petition assailing the ruling of the CA.
SO ORDERED.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND DENYING THE PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE NLRC DECISION IN AWARDING DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA-SEC.21ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
As with all other kinds of worker, the terms and conditions of a seafarers employment is governed by the provisions of the contract he signs at the time he is hired. But unlike that of others, deemed written in the seafarers contract is a set of standard provisions set and implemented by the POEA, called the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which are considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable to the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels. x x x.25ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryTaking into consideration that Rogelio was employed on November 13, 1998, it is the 1996 Revised POEA-SEC that is considered incorporated in his contract of employment and is controlling for purposes of resolving the issue at hand.
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSAlso, in Southeastern Shipping, et al. v. Navarra, Jr.,26 the Court declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. 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.27cralawred
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATHx x x x
- 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.
- 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:
- The employer shall pay the deceased's beneficiary all outstanding obligations due the seafarer under this Contract.
- The employer shall transport the remains and personal effects of the seafarer to the Philippines at employer's 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 master's best judgment. In all cases, the employer/master shall communicate with the manning agency to advise for disposition of seafarer's remains.
- 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. (Emphases supplied)
In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that Rogelio's illness was acquired during the term of his employment with the respondents. Instead, what the petitioners presented were medical certificate issued by Dr. Dungo dated November 12, 1999 attesting that Rogelio consulted him due to weakness and numbness of Rogelio's left half body and lower extremities and medical examination results in March and April 2000 showing that he had cancer. The Court, however, finds it not sufficient proof to show a causal connection or at least a work relation between the employment of Rogelio and his cancer. In the absence of substantial evidence, Rogelio's working conditions cannot be assumed to have increased the risk of contracting cancer.
- The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
- The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
- The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;
- There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.29
Indeed, the death of a seaman several months after his repatriation for illness does not necessarily mean that: a) the seaman died of the same illness; b) his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death; and c) the death is compensable, unless there is some reasonable basis to support otherwise. x x x.31ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn the instant case, Rogelio was repatriated not because of any illness but because his contract of employment expired. There is likewise no proof that he contracted his illness during the term of his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death.
Endnotes:
* Additional Member per Raffle dated February 18, 2015 vice Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.
1Rollo, pp. 8-24.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring; id. at 25-37.
3 Id. at 38-39.
4 Penned by Commissioner Hrnesto S. Dinopol, with Commissioners Roy V. Seneres and Romeo L. Go concurring; id. at 40-47.
5 Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco, concurred by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and dissented by Commissioner Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr.; id. at 48-50.
6 Issued by Labor Arbiter Jovencio LI. Mayor, Jr.; id. at 51-61.
7 Id. at 26
8 Id. at 159.
9 Id. at 26.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 51-61.
15 Id. at 40-47.
16 Id. at 46.
17 Id. at 48-50.
18 Id. at 25-37.
19 Id. at 36.
20 Id. at 38-39.
21 Id. at 14.
22Sarona v. NLRC, et al., 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).
23Esguerra v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 199932, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 687, 696.
24 590 Phil. 611 (2008).cralawred
25 Id. at 626.
26 635 Phil. 350 (2010).cralawred
27 Id. at 360.
28 G.R. No. 198388, July 28, 2014, 731 SCRA 180.
29Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc., et al. v. Beneficiaries of the Late Second Officer Anthony S. Allas, 566 Phil. 579, 588 (2008).
30 645 Phil, 34 (2010).
31 Id. at 52.
32 Supra note 26, at 360.