Balatongan thereupon filed on June 21, 1985 a complaint against PHILIMARE
SHIPPING and SEAGULL with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) for nonpayment of his claim for disability insurance.
The POEA, after hearing, rendered judgment against PHILIMARE SHIPPING and
SEAGULL in favor of Balatongan was awarded US$50,000.00.
PHILIMARE and SEAGULL appealed the POEA decision to the National Labor
Relations Commission which denied the same. And on petition for review on certiorari
with this Court, the petition of PHILMARE and SEAGULL, docketed as G.R. No. 82252,
was dismissed by decision of February 28, 1989.4 In its decision, this Court held:
There is no question that under the said supplementary contract of employment, it is
the duty of the employer, petitioners herein, to insure the employee, during his
engagement, against death and permanent invalidity caused by accident on board up
to $50,000.00. Consequently, it is also its concomitant obligation to see to it that the
claim against the insurance company is duly filed by private respondent or in his
behalf, and within the time provided for by the terms of the insurance contract.
In this case, the private respondent met the accident on October 6, 1983. Since then,
he was hospitalized at the Suez Canal Authority Hospital and thereafter he was
repatriated to the Philippines wherein he was also hospitalized from October 22,
1983 to March 27, 1984. It was only on August 19, 1985 that he was issued a medical
certificate describing his disability to be permanent in nature. It was not possible for
private respondent to file a claim for permanent disability with the insurance company
within the one-year period from the time of the injury, as his disability was
ascertained to be permanent only thereafter. Petitioners did not exert any effort to
assist private respondent to recover payment of his claim from the insurance
company. They did not even care to dispute the finding of the insurer that the claim
was not filed on time. Petitioners must, therefore, be held responsible for its
omission, if not negligence, by requiring them to pay the claim of private
respondent. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
This decision had become final and executory.
Before the promulgation of this Courts decision in G. R. No. 82252 or on April 10,
1987, NAVALES, on behalf of Arawa Bay Shipping Corporation Pte Ltd. of
Singapore (ARAWA BAY SHIPPING), and herein petitioner Southeast Asia Shipping
Corporation (SEASCORP) entered into a MANNING AGENCY AGREEMENT 5 wherein
NAVALES appointed SEASCORP as recruiting agent for the hiring of Filipino
seamen. The said MANNING AGENCY AGREEMENT stated that, among other things,
[t]his Agreement shall incorporate the Special Power of Attorney executed by
[NAVALES] in favor of the AGENT [SEASCORP] . . .