Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 160315 November 11, 2005
LOURDES D. RIVERA, Petitioner,
vs.
WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., and WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT, LTD., Respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 23, 2003,
in CA-G.R. SP No. 71807, as well as the Resolution2 dated October 8, 2003 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
The antecedents are as follows:
Spouses Rodolfo and Lourdes Rivera were residents of Meycauayan, Bulacan. Rodolfo had been working as a seaman since 1989, and had been
repeatedly hired by Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. with Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd., as principal.
On January 25, 1997, Rodolfo signed a Contract of Employment3 as messman on board the Crown Jade with a basic monthly salary of US$390.00 on
a 44-hour work week, and guaranteed monthly overtime pay of US$217 for 85 hours. As required by the contract, Rodolfo was subjected to a preemployment medical examination4 where he was declared fit to work. He joined the crew of Crown Jade on February 3, 1997 for a nine-month voyage.
Before the expiration of his contract and prior to disembarkation, Rodolfo thrice sought medical attention for various complaints: on March 4, 1997, for
swelling on the left ankle at the port of Santa Marta;5 on August 3, 1997, for "rashes on the right calf" at the port of Gothenburg where he was declared
unfit to work and was advised bed rest for three to five days;6 and on November 17, 1997, also at the port of Gothenburg, for "testicular pain on right
side," where he was again advised to rest for three to four days.7 He signed off from the vessel on November 19, 1997.
On December 5, 1997, Rodolfo claimed his leave pay and one day travel allowance from Wallem Shipping.8
On December 24, 1997, Rodolfo, having suffered some weakness, was brought to the University of Santo Tomas Hospital.
In a Letter9 dated January 13, 1998, Lourdes informed Wallem Shipping that her husband was confined and was suffering from "end-stage renal
disease 2nd degree Tubulo-interstitial nephritis." She then requested for assistance in claiming her husband’s retirement pay. Accordingly, Rodolfo’s
benefits amounting to US$371.80 were released.10
In January 1998, Lourdes filed a grievance complaint against Wallem Shipping for non-payment of disability benefits before the Associated Marine
Officers and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines-PTGWO-ITF. The parties did not reach a settlement, and the complaint was declared a deadlock on
January 28, 1998.11
Rodolfo eventually succumbed to congestive heart failure secondary to chronic renal disease and died on April 28, 1999. 12
On July 26, 1999, Lourdes filed a claim for death benefits, burial assistance, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The case was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. OFW (M)99-07-1152.13
Lourdes alleged that her husband had served the respondents in separate and successive contracts for more than eight years. He was, likewise, a
messman for many years, and often helped in cooking different styles of food. The complainant surmised that the spicy ingredients and other food
garnishes to which her husband as a Filipino was unaccustomed to, along with his continuous exposure to heat, humidity, smoke, fumes and physical
exhaustion contributed to the illness that caused his death. She pointed out that her husband’s illness was acknowledged by the respondents as shown
in the Master’s Report.14 She insisted that the respondents did not bother to extend medical and financial assistance to her husband, because of which
the latter failed to comply with the physician’s advice to undergo several laboratory tests. The family’s finances were completely depleted and she
could no longer borrow money to defray the mounting medical hospitalization expenses, so she was forced to bring her husband home.
According to Lourdes, despite her repeated pleas for the release of her husband’s compensation, the respondents refused to give any form of financial
aid. She prayed that judgment be rendered in her favor awarding death compensation benefits of US$50,000.00 and US$7,000.00 for her minor child,
Ryan Louie; US$1,000.00 as burial assistance; P500,000.00 as moral damages; P250,000.00 as exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees equivalent
to 10% of the judgment award.15
For their part, the respondents alleged that the complaint stated no cause of action. They pointed out that in response to the complainant’s proforma Complaint dated July 19, 1999, they filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, to which the complainant failed to respond, much less appear at the
scheduled hearings of the case. When she appeared on October 13, 1999, she manifested that the parties be required to simultaneously file their
respective position papers.