6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly TANCONTIAN: ACE B. TANCONTIAN: US$7,000 US$700 Further, [respondents] CAPT. OSCAR ORBETA, [TEMMPC] and [TMCL] (the manning agency) are hereby directed to pay solidarity the complainants in addition to their awarded claims, additional death benefits of US$7,000 each to the minor children of petitioner Rosalia T. Gudelosao, namely, Christy Mae T. Gudelosao and Rose Elden T. Gudelosao. Respondent SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. is hereby directed to pay as beneficiaries complainants ROSALIA T. GUDELOSAO and CARMEN B. TANCONTIAN [P]3,240,000.00 each for the proceeds of the Personal Accident Policy Cover it issued for each of the deceased seafarers EDWIN C. GUDELOSAO and VIRGILIO A. TANCONTIAN plus 10% attorney's fees thereof at [P]324,000.00 each thereof or a total of [P]648,000.00. Nevertheless, upon payment of said proceeds to said widows by respondent SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. respondent PHIL-NIPPON CORPORATION'S liability to all the complainants is deemed extinguished. SO ORDERED.[18] The CA found that the NLRC erred when it ruled that the obligation of petitioner, TEMMPC and TMCL for the payment of death benefits under the POEA-SEC was ipso facto transferred to SSSICI upon the death of the seafarers. TEMMPC and TMCL cannot raise the defense of the total loss of the ship because its liability under POEA-SEC is separate and distinct from the liability of the shipowner.[19] To disregard the contract, which has the force of law between the parties, would defeat the purpose of the Labor Code and the rules and regulations issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in setting the minimum terms and conditions of employment for the protection of Filipino seamen.[20] The CA noted that the benefits being claimed are not dependent upon whether there is total loss of the vessel, because the liability attaches even if the vessel did not sink.[21] Thus, it was error for the NLRC to absolve TEMMPC and TMCL on the basis of the limited liability rule. Significantly though, the CA ruled that petitioner is not liable under the POEA-SEC, but by virtue of its being a shipowner.[22] Thus, petitioner is liable for the injuries to passengers even without a determination of its fault or negligence. It is for this reason that petitioner obtained insurance from SSSICI - to protect itself against the consequences of a total loss of the vessel caused by the perils of the sea. Consequently, SSSICI's liability as petitioner's insurer directly arose from the contract of insurance against liability (i.e., Personal Accident Policy).[23] The CA then ordered that petitioner's liability will only be extinguished upon payment by SSSICI of the insurance proceeds.[24] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[25] dated November 5, 2007 but this was elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62118 4/18