3/27/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Apolinario’s position that prior to his death, Dennis had been suffering from mental
instability, and therefore could not be considered to have intentionally taken his life. It
cited the personal accounts of the Filipino crewmembers on Dennis’ unusual behavior
days before the incident, which narrated that Dennis appeared to be very disturbed,
anxious, depressed and restless. These personal accounts are contained in the
“Statement on Mr. Dennis Siador”[16] (Crewmembers’ Statement) that Master Capt.
Dragan Tataj, the Master of the vessel, prepared on the very day the incident
happened; the Filipino crewmembers affirmed the statement through their signatures.
[17]
The CA opined that without the report of Dennis’ previous unusual behavior, it would
have been safe to presume that he willfully took his life, but the report on record
cannot be disregarded.[18]
The Petition
The petitioners ask the Court to set aside the CA ruling on the ground that the CA
gravely erred in reversing the decision and the resolution of the LA and the NLRC,
respectively, as they committed no grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case. They
insist that there is “ample and convincing evidence” showing that Dennis took his own
life and that his death was not caused by his mental problems.
The evidence, they point out, is found in the Crewmembers’ Statement, where the
crewmembers in contact with Dennis narrated that on the day of the incident “he was
just depressed, that he was not ill and that he just wanted to be alone.” [19] According
to the petitioners, Dennis’ statement negates the CA’s finding that Dennis was mentally
ill.
The Case for Apolinario
In his Comment,[20] Apolinario prays for the dismissal of the petition. The CA’s finding
that Dennis was suffering from unsound mind days before the incident is fully
supported by the records of the case, particularly by the petitioners’ own evidence.
Apolinario submits, too, that the CA ruling coincides with legal principle in labor
compensation cases that self-destruction is not presumed.[21]
The Court’s Ruling
We grant the petition.
Preliminary considerations
a. Certiorari under Rule 65 and appeal under Rule 45
In a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling rendered pursuant to Rule 65, the Court determines
the legal correctness of the CA decision based on its determination of the presence or
absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision that the CA reviewed, not on
the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57997
3/13