4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In its Decision[23] dated April 28, 2006, the LA ruled in favor of Cristina, ordering petitioners to pay her US$50,000.00 as death benefits, US$7,000.00 as benefits to their minor son, Jerome Lester, US$1,000.00 as burial assistance, and ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award as attorney’s fees.[24] The LA found that the release papers executed by Joselito during his lifetime cannot bar his heirs’ right to receive death benefits and burial expenses which only arose and accrued upon his death.[25] Further, the LA opined that the payment of sickness wages and other benefits made by petitioners is an acknowledgement that his death was compensable. [26] The Ruling of the NLRC In its Decision[27] dated August 28, 2009, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA’s ruling, holding that Joselito did not die during the term of his contract with petitioners and that his illness was not proven to be work-related.[28] Nonetheless, the NLRC held that contrary to petitioners’ claims, Cristina’s complaint is not barred by res judicata considering the lack of identity of causes of action between Joselito’s and Cristina’s respective complaints.[29] Cristina filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October 9, 2009 but was denied in the NLRC’s Resolution[30] dated December 21, 2009. Aggrieved, Cristina filed a Petition for Certiorari[31] dated March 4, 2010 with the CA. The Ruling of the CA In its Decision[32] dated October 21, 2011, the CA annulled and set aside the NLRC’s ruling and reinstated that of the LA. It held that while the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) allows an employer to extend a seafarer’s employment beyond the period stipulated if there was no replacement crew available, such extension should not exceed three (3) months. In Joselito’s case, his original contract period expired sometime in October 2002 but petitioners extended his employment until February 2003, or for four (4) additional months. Thus, the CA deemed that there was an implied renewal of Joselito’s employment contract for another nine (9) months starting from the expiration of the allowable three (3) month extension on January 28, 2003, or for the period of January 29, 2003 up to October 28, 2003. In view of this, Joselito’s death on October 9, 2003 was within the term of his contract and thus, compensable. Moreover, the CA noted that even though Joselito’s illness was not listed in Section 32 of the Standard Employment Contract, petitioners nevertheless failed to rebut the disputable presumption that Joselito’s illness is work-related.[33] Petitioners sought for reconsideration but was denied in the CA’s Resolution[34] dated March 27, 2012. Hence, this petition. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55976 3/10