Interorient Maritime Enterprises, INC vs NLRC : 115497 : September ...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/115497.htm
In its Answer/Position Paper, respondent agency averred that deceased seaman signed a contract of
employment as Oiler for a period of nine (9) months with additional three (3) months upon mutual consent
of both parties with a monthly salary of US$276.00, fixed overtime rate of US$83.00; that on December
21, 1988, deceased seaman joined the vessel MV Amazonia and proceeded to discharge his duties as
Oiler; that on September 28, 1989, he finished his contract and was discharged from the port of Dubai for
repatriation to Manila; that his flight schedule from Dubai to the Philippines necessitated a stopover at
Bangkok, Thailand, and during said stopover he disembarked on his own free will and failed to join the
connecting flight to Hongkong with final destination to Manila; that on October 5, 1990, it received a fax
transmission from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the effect that Jeremias Pineda was shot by a Thai
Officer on duty on October 2, 1989 at around 4:00 P.M.; that the police report submitted to the Philippine
Embassy in Bangkok confirmed that it was Pineda who approached and tried to stab the police sergeant
with a knife and that therefore he was forced to pull out his gun and shot Pineda; that they are not liable to
pay any death/burial benefits pursuant to the provisions of Par. 6, Section C, Part II, POEA Standard
Format of Employment which state(s) that no compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury,
(in)capacity, disability or death resulting from a willful (sic) act on his own life by the seaman; that the
deceased seaman died due to his own wilfull (sic) act in attacking a policeman in Bangkok who shot him
in self-defense.
After the parties presented their respective evidence, the POEA Administrator rendered his
decision holding petitioners liable for death compensation benefits and burial expenses.
Petitioners appealed the POEA decision to the public respondent. In a Decision dated March
30, 1994, public respondent upheld the POEA.
Thus, this recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action for certiorari per Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
The Issues
The petitioners made the following assignment of errors:
Respondent NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in ruling that herein petitioners are liable for
death compensation benefits despite the fact that there is no direct evidence proving that Pineda was
mentally sick at the time of repatriation.
Respondent NLRC committed a serious error of law in not upholding the provisions of Par. 6, Section C,
Part II of the POEA standard format Contract of Employment.
Respondent NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in finding for compensability of Pinedas death
when respondents (should read petitioners) have proven that his death was not work-connected.
The principal issue in this case is whether the petitioners can be held liable for the death of
seaman Jeremias Pineda.
The petitioners challenge the factual bases of the NLRC Decision, and argue that there was
no evidence, whether documentary or testimonial, that the deceased Pineda, at the time of his
repatriation was not in full control of his mental faculties, and that there (was) no showing that
seaman Pineda acted strangely when he disembarked from the vessel in Dubai where he was
discharged, and from which point he flew to Bangkok without any untoward incident during the
entire trip. They thus insist that they were under no obligation to have Pineda accompanied
home when he was discharged at the end of the contract term of nine months, that they were in
no position to control the deceaseds movements and behavior after he was repatriated and
therefore should not be held answerable for the deceaseds own voluntary acts, and that the
2 of 7
1/20/2016 12:35 PM