4/10/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
aggregate sum of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00) pursuant to
[A]rticle 20 (A)1 of the CBA x x x
xxxx
Merridy Jane averred that the P20,000.00 already received by Joven Mar
should be considered advance payment of the total claim of US$90,000.
[00].
[Herein respondents], on the other hand, asserted that the NLRC had no
jurisdiction over the action on account of the absence of employer-employee
relationship between GCI and Nelson at the time of the latter’s death.
Nelson also had no claims against petitioners for sick leave
allowance/medical benefit by reason of the completion of his contract with
GCI. They further alleged that private respondent is not entitled to death
benefits because petitioners are only liable for such “in case of death of the
seafarer during the term of his contract pursuant to the POEA contract” and
the cause of his death is not work-related. Petitioners admitted liability only
with respect to article 20(A)2 [of the CBA]. x x x
xxxx
However, as petitioners stressed, the same was already discharged.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent. It took cognizance of
the case by virtue of Article 217 (a), paragraph 6 of the Labor Code and the
existence of a reasonable causal connection between the employeremployee relationship and the claim asserted. It ordered the petitioner to
pay P4,621,300.00, the equivalent of US$90,000.00 less P20,000.00, at the
time of judgment x x x
xxxx
The Labor Arbiter also ruled that the proximate cause of Nelson’s death was
not work-related.
On appeal, [the NLRC] affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision as to the grant
of death benefits under the CBA but reversed the latter’s ruling as to the
proximate cause of Nelson’s death.[3]
Herein respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA contending
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the jurisdiction of the
NLRC over the case; in ruling that a different provision of the CBA covers the death
claim; in reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the cause of death is not workrelated; and, in setting aside the release and quitclaim executed by the attorney-infact and not considering the P20,000.00 already received by Merridy Jane through her
attorney-in-fact.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54854
2/8