Eastern Shipping vs.

Lucero
124 SCRA 425

On October 31, 1979, Capt. Julio J. Lucero, Jr.was appointed as captain of the shipEASTERN MINICON of
eastern shipping lines

Under the contract, his employment was goodfor one (1) round trip only, i.e., the contractwould
automatically terminate upon arrival ofthe vessel at the Port of Manila, unlessrenewed. It was further
agreed that part of thecaptain's salary, while abroad, should be paidto Mrs. Josephine Lucero, his wife,
in Manila

Captain Lucero sent three distress messagesto the company on the following dates
o

February l6,1980 7am
;
February l6/803:30pm
;
FEBRUARY 16/80 9:50pm

o
On the third message he stated that seawaterwas entering the vessel and they werepreparing to
abandon ship

The company notified the coast guard. Searchresults were negative

The insurers of the company confirmed theloss of the vessel. Thereafter, the Companypaid the
corresponding death benefits to theheirs of the crew members, except respondentJosephine Lucero,
who refused to accept


July 16, 1980
, Mrs. Lucero filed a complaint forfor payment of the accrued salary allotment ofher husband which the
Company had stoppedsince March 1980 and for continued paymentof said allotments until the M/V
Minicon shallhave returned to the port of Manila. She
contended that the contract of employmententered into by her husband with the Companywas on a
voyage-to-voyage basis, and that thesame was to terminate only upon the vessel'sarrival in Manila

The company refused to pay. The Nationalseamen board upheld the complaint and thedecision was
affirmed by the NLRCIssue: WON Mrs Lucero was entitled to theaccrued salaryHeld:The NLRC based its
judgment on Art 391regarding the presumption of death at sea.They argue that it was too early to
presumethat Mr. Lucero has died because under thelaw, four (4) years have not yet passed.Art. 391. The
following shall be presumed deadfor all purposes, including the division of theestate among the heirs:
(1) A person on boarda vessel lost during a sea voyage, or anaeroplane which is missing, who has not
beenheard of for four years since the loss of thevessel or aeroplane;...The Supreme Court ruled however
that apreponderance of evidence from the telegraphmessages and the fact that the vessel was notheard
of again show that it can be logicallyinferred that the vessel has sunk and the
crewperished. As the Court said in
Joaquin vs.Navarro

4

"Where there are facts, known orknowable, from which a rational conclusion canbe made, the
presumption does not step in,and the rule of preponderance of evidencecontrols."Hence the decision of
the NLRC is reversed;however, death benefits should be paid.