5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
amount of US$60,000.00, which petitioners refused to heed. [11] Thus, respondent
filed a complaint against petitioners for the same, seeking as well moral and
exemplary damages, including attorney’s fees. In
their
position
paper, [12]
petitioners denied respondent’s claims, contending that his injury was self-inflicted
and, hence, not compensable under Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC. They denied that
the vessel’s incinerator exploded and claimed that respondent burned himself by
pouring paint thinner on his overalls and thereafter set himself on fire. They averred
that he was led to commit such act after he was caught last October 10, 2000 [13]
stealing the vessel’s supplies during a routine security inspection conducted by Captain
Bodo Wirth (Captain Wirth) where respondent was informed that he was to be
dismissed.[14] They also stated that just before they Based on the aforesaid statement,
on October 10, 2000, while the vessel was docked in Hong Kong, Captain Wirth
conducted a routine security inspection when he came across a large parcel which
belonged to respondent lying on the crew passageway. Upon inspection, the box
contained a television set, a day bed cover, several towels and some provisions, all
belonging to the vessel. When asked why he was stealing the foregoing articles,
respondent claimed that they were given to him as a present by the chief steward.
However, when Captain Wirth asked the latter, he denied giving respondent the same.
As a result, Captain Wirth informed respondent that his actions warranted his
immediate dismissal. discovered respondent to be burning, the vessel’s engine room
became flooded.[15] They ascribed the flooding incident to respondent, having been
seen by fellow crew members standing at the railing around the portside seachest and
looking at it[16] and that when the bilge level alarm sounded, he was seen disappearing
up to the boiler deck leaving small patches of water on the floor, on the steps, and on
the deck where he had been.[17] In support thereof, petitioners submitted the report of
the ship captain on the flooding as extracted from the vessel’s deck logbook[18] as well
as the affidavits and statements executed by the vessel’s officers and crew members
relative to the flooding and burning incidents. Based on the said affidavits and
statements, the vessel’s bosun, Antonio Gile (Gile), attested that he saw respondent go
to the paint room and there soak his hands in a can full of thinner. Respondent then
proceeded to the incinerator door where he was set ablaze. Gile further pointed out
that there was no fire in the incinerator at that time.[19] Also, Chief Officer Antonino S.
Bejada (Bejada) testified that prior to the burning incident, he had ordered an ordinary
seaman who had been burning deck waste in the incinerator to extinguish the fire with
water and close up the incinerator door because of bad weather conditions. Bejada then
checked the incinerator after the burning incident and found unburnt cardboard cartons
inside with no sign of explosion and that the steel plates surrounding it were cool to the
touch. He also noticed that the respondent’s overalls had patches of green paint on the
arms and body and smelled strongly of thinner. An open paint tin can was found near
the place of the incident and a cigarette lighter lying beside respondent [20]
which oiler Edgardo Israel confirmed was borrowed from him even though he knew
that the former did not smoke.[21] Finally, petitioners denied respondent’s claim for
damages and attorney’s fees for lack of factual and legal bases.[22]
In his Reply to the position paper, [23] respondent denied burning himself,
contending that such act was contrary to human nature and logic and that there was no
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605
2/31