E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12/19/21, 1:28 PM search the vessel while others were assigned to focus their search on the open sea to locate and rescue Vedasto. Assistance from other vessels was also requested. The search and rescue operation lasted for about six hours, but Vedasto was not found. On August 3, 1994, a Report[6] was issued by the Master of M/V Couper declaring that Vedasto was missing. His wife, Imelda Pantollano (Imelda), was likewise informed about the disappearance of Vedasto while onboard M/V Couper. Since then, Vedasto was never seen again. On May 29, 2000, Imelda filed a complaint7 before the NLRC where she sought to recover death benefits, damages and attorney's fees. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On January 31, 2002, Labor Arbiter Renaldo O. Hernandez rendered a Decision[8] holding that the legal heirs of Vedasto are entitled to the payment of death benefits and attorney's fees. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is entered finding respondents liable for the claimed death benefits to complainant-inrepresentation thus ORDERING respondent's] principal and local manning agent, along with the latter's corporate officers and directors, jointly and severally: 1. [T]o Pay to the deceased complainant's legal heirs/beneficiaries Imelda Pantollano and their four minor children, viz., Honeyvette L. Pantollano born 10/30/81, Tierra Bryn L. Pantollano born 04/17/84. Kienne Dionnes L, Pantollano born 08/29/89, and Sherra Veda Mae L. Pantollano born 11/21/90, death benefits under the POEA Rules and Regulations of US$50,000.00 and US$ 28,000.00 (US$7,000.00 each) for the said 4 minor children; 2. [T]o give and/or pay to them the proceeds of seafarer V. Pantollano['s] coverage for Comprehensive Life, Health, Medical and Disability Insurance with various P and I Clubs for the Owner's Protection and Indemnity against any such claim against all hazards and risks in operating the vessel pursuant to maritime commerce; 3. [To] pay attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary amount awarded. Other claims of complainant-in-representation are denied for lack of merit. SO ORDERED [9] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission Korphil sought recourse to the NLRC by submitting its Notice of Appeal[10] With Memorandum of Appeal on March 6, 2002. On June 7, 2002, Korphil filed a Supplemental Appeal[11] to their Memorandum of Appeal. On July 31, 2002, the NLRC issued a Resolution[13] reversing and setting aside the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/37942 Page 2 of 10