G.R. No. 190534 February 10, 2016
C.F. SHARP CREW
MANAGEMENT,INC., RONALD AUSTRIA, and ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO. vs. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE
GODOFREDO REPISO, represented by his wife LUZVIMINDA REPISO,.
FACTS:
In
2002, Godofredo Repiso (Godofredo) was hired as a Messman by C.F. Sharp under
an employment contract approved by POEA. Godofredo underwent Pre-employment
medical examination and after, being declared as physically fit to work,
Godofredo boarded M/T Umm Al Lulu on
May 20, 2002 and was repatriated on March 16, 2003. On March 17, 2003, Godofredo was examined and
diagnosed with “Essential Hypertension” and was advised to rest. On March 19,
2003, Godofredo died after losing consciousness while waiting for a ride. On
his death certificate is was declared that the immediate cause of death was irreversible
shock; antecedent cause: acute Myocadial Infarction; and Underlying case:
hypertensive heart Disease.
Godofredo
was survived by his wife, Luzviminda and 3 minor children (respondents).
On September
17, 2003, Luzviminda sent a letter to C.F Sharpclaiming death compensation
benefits, burial allowance and children allowance. The letter was left
unheeded.
The
respondents then filed a complaint before the NLRC for monetary claims, arguing
that Godofredo died of an illness which was acquired during his employment on M/T Umm Al Lulu. Respondents claim that
the applicable rule was the 1996 POEA-Standard Emplyment Contract (SEC) which
provides that, to be compensable, it need not be proved that illness was
work-related (and not the 2000 POEASEC as it was enjoined by a TRO).
Respondents also said that Godofredo was found fit to work during his PEME,
which the petitioners cannot now deny and that Godofredo was repatriated due to
his medical condition.
Petitioners
argue that Godofredo’s death was not compensable because the cause ws not work-related
and it did not occur during the terms of his employment. His being a Chief Cook
could not have contributed to his death or increased his risk of contracting
the illness. It is Petitioner’s opinion that he was already suffering from
hypertension and concealed such fact. Petitioner likewise point that Godofredo
failed to submit himself to a mandatory Post employment medical examination
after disembarkation.
Labor Arbiter: Respondent heirs won. Illness was work-related and the subsequent death was compensable
considering the sequence of events leading to Godofredo’s death which happened only
3 days after repatriation. Under Section 32-A of the POEA contract, Essential
Hypertension is an occupational disease.
NLRC: Petitioners won. Death happened outside the term of his employment. Responents
failed to prove work-relation. Even if listed as an Occupational Disease,
respondendts failed to meet conditions of compensability: “hypertension classified as primary or essentials is
considered compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like
kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting in permanent disability;XXX (Sec
32-A). Burden of proof lies on the beneficiaries to prove compensability.
Court of Appeals: Respondent heirs won. NLRC wrong in saying Godofredo finished his contract. He was
repatriated for medical reasons and not for “end of contract”. Strict rules of evidence, it must be
remembered, are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability
benefits. Also, the POEA SEC should be construed reasonable and liberally in
favor of the Seamen.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error
of law in failing to consider that the contract of employment of Mr. Godofredo
Repiso was terminated upon his arrival in the Philippines (the point of hire)
as provided in POEA-SEC.
2. Whether the Court of
Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in failing to consider that
Mr. Godofredo Repiso never died of an illness suffered on board as there was no
evidence showing any medical discomfort or incidents on board leading to such
conclusion.
3. Whether the Court of
Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in failing to consider that
respondents’ failure to submit evidence of any incident on board is not
equivalent to substantial evidence required in any quasi-judicial proceedings,
such as the NLRC, to prove an illness suffered on board.
RULING:
Respondent heirs won.
The Contract of Employment governs
the terms and conditions of ones employment. Nevertheless, the POEA Rules and
Regulations require that the POEA-SEC is integrated in every seafarer’s
contract.
The 1996 POEA-SEC provides for
compensation and benefits for a seafarer’s death during the term of his contract or when a
seafarer dies as a result of injury or illness during the term of employment, among
others. It also provides that illness leading to the eventual death need not be shown as work-related to be
compensable, but must be proved that it was contracted during his employment.
The Court is convinced that
Godofredo contracted the illness during his employment, considering that
Godofredo had no previous record of hypertension until his
repatriation.Godofredo was repatriated earlier than the intended due to medical
reason. The burden of proving otherwise rested on petitioners which they could
have done so by presenting the logbooks and records, showing entries on Godofredo’s
health while on board, which they failed to do; giving rise to the presumption
that the logbooks and records contain entries adverse to petitioner’s case.
The Court also found the occasion to
state the the provision disqualifying a seafarer from claiming benefits due to
concealment of pre-existing condition had been suspended.
The Court considered medical
repatriation an exceptional circumstance and allows the heirs of seafarers who
died after being medically repatriated to recover compensation benefits.
The Court ruled that the cases cited
by Petitioners were not on all fours with the present case, considering that in
those cases, it was not proven that the illnesses and deaths were connected to
or brought about by their employment, considering the evidence presented, the
term of employment, and duration of employment, among others.
