On December 11, 2000, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for "lack of merit and want of basis." The Labor Arbiter ruled that the complainant
was not entitled to death benefits or burial expenses, considering that her husband died more than one year after he arrived in the Philippines. The
Labor Arbiter also took note that Rodolfo was never confined or advised shore treatment during the course of his employment, but was merely directed
to rest for three to five days. Moreover, Rodolfo failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement under Section 20(B) of the Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels.
Lourdes appealed the matter to the NLRC, which, after due proceedings, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.16 According to the NLRC, Wallem
Shipping could not be faulted for not extending the necessary medical examination upon disembarkation because, in the first place, the deceased
failed to comply with what was required of him under the contract, i.e., to submit himself to medical check-up within 72 hours upon arrival. However,
this was not a bar for Lourdes to claim death benefits due her on account of her husband’s death. Citing Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission,17 the NLRC ruled that it is not required that employment be the sole factor in the acceleration of the illness as to entitle
the claimant to death benefits. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED ordering the respondents, jointly and severally,
to pay the complainant the following:
1. Death compensation Benefits
For complainant US$50,000.00
For Ryan Rivera 7,000.00
(minor child)
2. Burial assistance 1,000.00
3. Attorney’s fees equivalent
to 10% of the total monetary
awards
SO ORDERED.18
Unsatisfied, Wallem Shipping elevated the matter to the CA.
According to the appellate court, there was no basis to grant Lourdes’ claim for disability benefits because her husband was "repatriated" not because
he was ill but because his contract had been completed. It stressed that Rodolfo failed to comply with the reporting requirement under paragraph 3,
Section 20(B). Moreover, the medical certificate relied upon by the NLRC did not sufficiently prove that Rodolfo’s illness was work-related.19 Thus, the
CA ruled –
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the NLRC are hereby SET ASIDE and
the decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED dismissing the complaint.
SO ORDERED.20
The petitioner now comes before the Court on the following sole issue:
… Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the death benefits under the POEA Contract which arose from the death of seafarer Rodolfo Rivera and
what amount of evidence is required from the petitioner to prove her entitlement thereto. 21
According to the petitioner, the CA decided factual questions of substance not in accord with the law and settled jurisprudence. She points out that her
deceased husband died of congestive heart failure with chronic renal disease as the underlying cause. He could not have acquired the illness
elsewhere since he was diagnosed with end-stage renal disease a month after he returned to the Philippines. The petitioner further points out that her
husband had been employed by the respondents from 1989 to 1997. She insists that there is "a medical connection between the infirmities which the
deceased seaman previously suffered while he was on board and the very cause of his death." While Rodolfo died after the employment contract had
already expired, the signs and symptoms of the disease which ultimately led to his death were already present at the time he was still under the
respondents’ employ. The petitioner insists that it has been clearly established that her husband died of a work-related disease.
Citing Wallem Maritime Services Inc. v. NLRC,22 the petitioner claims that, like her husband, the seafarer therein died after the term of his employment
contract, but the Court granted the benefits being recovered notwithstanding the argument of the employers that such death occurred after the
expiration of the contract. The petitioner further insists that she is entitled to attorney’s fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
considering that the respondents’ act or omission compelled her to incur expenses to enforce her lawful claims.