4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly as asphyxia due to hanging.[25] Inasmuch as Manuel committed suicide, petitioner, clearly, is not entitled to any benefits arising therefrom. Even if death by suicide was ruled out, respondents argued that no benefits can still be granted to the petitioner because she failed to present proof that Manuel's death during his employment was due to any work-related cause as required under the POEA-SEC or the CBA.[26] Moreover, respondents posited that the petitioner cannot claim insurance benefits under R.A. No. 10022 because only death through natural and accidental causes are covered by the said law. Since suicide is neither natural nor accidental, the same is not compensable under R.A. No. 10022.[27] Since respondents are justified in denying petitioner's claims, there is also no cogent reason to award moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees in her favor.[28] On February 2, 2015, the Panel rendered a Decision[29] in favor of the petitioner. The individual accounts of Manuel's co-workers of his bizarre attitude failed to convince the Panel that Manuel took his own life. It also found unworthy of belief the reports of the various investigators given that the same were prepared 10 days after Manuel's death. The Panel likewise made much of the NBI Autopsy Report which made no mention of the word "hanging" or "suicide," but only concluded the cause of death as "consistent with asphyxia by ligature." Thus, the Panel ruled that petitioner's narration of her warm and happy telephone conversations with Manuel where the latter shared his dreams for her and his siblings contradicted respondents' claim of suicide.[30] Since there is no substantial evidence to warrant a finding of suicide, the Panel held that petitioner was entitled to death benefits under the CBA.[31] Even assuming that it had been duly proved that Manuel took his own life, petitioner would still be entitled to death benefits considering that Manuel died while in respondents' employ and because the CBA makes them liable therefor, regardless of the cause of death. In addition to death benefits, Section 25.1 of the CBA makes respondents' liable to the petitioner for transportation and burial expenses.[32] As for the insurance benefits, the Panel held that petitioner must be granted the same since suicide had not been established.[33] The Panel also awarded to the petitioner uncollected salaries due to Manuel given that the respondents' did not deny the same. It also found that substantial evidence had been presented showing Manuel's entitlement to guaranteed overtime pay, unpaid leave pay, unpaid daily allowance and owner's bonus. Hence, awarded the same to the petitioner. [34] The Panel disposed in this wise: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being duly considered, in the light of the facts as borne by the evidence on record, as well as based on the law and jurisprudence, [judgment] is hereby rendered as follows: First, Death Benefits are hereby granted in the Philippine currency equivalent to US $89,100.00 in accordance with the CBA covering the late [Manuel] A. [Borreta], Jr. Second, the proceeds of the AWWA RA 10022-mandated insurance in the Philippine currency equivalent of US $15,000.00 Third, the following are likewise awarded: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66237 4/37