6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 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] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration against said Decision, but the same proved futile as it was denied by the CA in a Resolution[9] dated March 27, 2013. Hence, the present petition wherein petitioners present the following issues for our resolution: 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.” IS DEATH BY SUICIDE COMPENSABLE UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT?[10] 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. Petitioners insist that seaman Glicerio committed suicide. They aver that the CA erred in not considering the Medico-Legal Report[11] as well as the Death Certificate[12] submitted by the parties on the ground that the same are only evidence of the cause of death, but not the circumstances surrounding seaman Glicerio’s suicide. Petitioners also lament the fact that the CA did not consider the Investigation Report,[13] log book extracts,[14] and Master’s Report[15] which detailed the events that transpired before seaman Glicerio committed suicide. They contend that the CA erred in disregarding these pieces of evidence which convincingly rule out suspicions of foul play. The petition is impressed with merit. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it under Rule 45[16] of the Rules of Court is limited only to reviewing errors of law. However, this rule is subject to certain exceptions, namely: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58912 6/12