YSMAEL MARITIME CORPORATION v AVELINO

Facts:
Lim, second mate, was on board the vessel M/S Rajah owned by petitioner,
Ysmael Maritime Corporation. The vessel ran ground and sank near Batanes.
Lim perished as a result of that incident. The parents of the deceased
claiming that the untimely death of the their son was due to the negligence
of petitioner sued the petitioner. Petitioner contends that parents were
already precluded from seeking other remedies against same
employer since they have been compensated by the Workmens
Compensation Commission for the same incident.
Issue: is compensation remedy under WCA for work connected
death or injuries sustained by an employee is exclusive of the other
remedies available under civil code?
Held:
Under exclusory provision of section 5, WCA reiterating Article 173 of
LC, The rights and remedies granted by this Act to an employee by reason
of a personal injury entitling him to compensation shall exclude all other
rights and remedies accruing to the employee, his personal
representatives, dependents or nearest of kin against the employer
under the Civil Code and other laws, because of said injury.
In the case of FLoresca v Philex Mining company there are three divergent
opinions:
1. Injured or heirs may initiate action to recover damages (not under
WCA) with regular courts on the basis of negligence of employer
2. Remedy is exclusive (sec 5, WCA)
3. Action is selective: choice availing benefits under WCVA or suing in the
regular courts. Once selection has been made, no longer free to opt for
the other remedy.
In floresca (main authority/ ruling) the court adopted the latter view. Thus,
employee cannot pursue both actions simultaneously. The court, in

so doing, rejected the dotrine of exclusivity of the rights and

remedies granted by WCA.
In this case, Lim spouses cannot be allowed to maintain their present
action to recover additional damages against petitioner under the
Civil Code. Spouses Lim admitted that had received compensation under
WCA. A sense of fair play would demand that if a person entitled to a
choice of remedies made a first election and accepted the benefits
thereof, he should no longer be allowed to exercise the second
option.

MABUHAY SHIPPING SERVICES v NLRC

Doctrine: Art 172, employer not liable for death compensation when
accident was due to intoxication or wilful intent to kill himself.
FACTS:
Sentina was hired as 4th engineer by petitioner for and in behalf of Skippers
Maritime Co. to work aboard the M/V Harmony for 1 year. While the vessel
was docked alongside pier in Greece, Sentina arrived visibly drunk. He
went to the messhal and took a fire axe and challenged those eating
therein. He was pacified by his shipmates, who also led him to his cabin.
However, later he went out and proceeded to the messhall, and became
violent. He smashed and threw a cup towards the head of an oiler Emmanuel
Ero, who was then eating. Ero touched his head and noticed blood. This
infuriated Ero which led to a fight between the two. Sentina was brought to
the hospital, where he passed away. Cecilia Sentina filed a complaint against
the petitioner with POEA for payment of death benefits, burial expenses,
unpaid salaries on board and overtime pay with damages. POEA ordered the
petitioners to pay the claim. Petitioner appealed to NLRVC although such
appeal was dismissed.
ISSUE: Is employer exempted from liability of employee who is in
state of intoxication provoked a fight as a result of which he was
killed?
HELD:

YES. The decision of POEA held that payment of death compensation benefits
only requires that the seaman should die during the term of the
contract and no other.
HOWEVER, this court disagrees with it. Mere death of the seaman during
the term of his employment does not automatically give rise to
compensation. The circumstance which led to the death as well as
the provisions of contract, and the right and obligation of the
employer and seaman must be taken into consideration in
consonance with due process and equal protection clauses.
There are limitations to the liability to pay death benefits. When the
death of the seaman resulted from a deliberate or willful act on his own
life, and it is directly attributable to the seaman, such death is not
compensable. In a state of intoxication, ran amuck, or committed an
unlawful aggression against another, inflicting injury on the latter, so
that in his own defense the latter fought back and in the process killed the
seaman, the circumstances of the death could be categorized as a
deliberate and willful act on his own life directly attributable to him.
The death of seaman Sentina is attributable to his unlawful aggression and
thus is not compensable. ARTICLE 172: limitations of liability-- employees
intoxication, wilful intent to injure or kill himself or another,
notorious negligence. Thus, petition granted. Employer is not liable.