CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Search

Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Labor Relations, Volume II
of a 3-Volume Series 2017 Edition, 5th Revised Edition,

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

Custom Search

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm

ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division

Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

November-2015 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015 - EDILBERTO P. ETOM, JR., Petitioner, v. AROMA LODGING HOUSE
THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM, PROPRIETOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197802, November 11, 2015 - ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, AKRAM ARAIN AND/OR VENUS
ARAIN, M.D. DBA ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, Petitioners, v. NATRAPHARM, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 179121, November 09, 2015 - MARGARITA M. BENEDICTO-MUÑOZ, Petitioner, v. MARIA
ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES,
MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, AND MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
179128 - ABACUS SECURITIES CORPORATION AND JOEL CHUA CHIU, Petitioners, v. MARIA ANGELES
CACHO-OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL Q. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B.
OLIVARES, [and] MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 179129 SAPPHIRE SECURITIES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. MARIA ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA
Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, MELISSA C. OLIVARES, AND THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 - CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-15-3391, November 16, 2015 - RE: INCIDENT REPORT RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL CASE FILED
AGAINST ROSEMARIE U. GARDUCE, CLERK III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (OCC), REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (RTC), PARANAQUE CITY

G.R. No. 207041, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROXAS CITY, Petitioner, v. JESUS A. ARROJADO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 176908, November 11, 2015 - PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V.
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ, JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO,
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO, Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 196083, November 11, 2015 - MILAGROS C. REYES, Petitioner, v. FELIX P. ASUNCION,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015 - JOSEPH C. CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO
UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 173864, November 23, 2015 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. AGUSTIN LIBO-ON,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015 - ROLANDO TOLENTINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODIL L. MILLADO
AND ATTY. FRANCISCO B. SIBAYAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 193158, November 11, 2015 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 214502, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCO
DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON, A.K.A. DARMO YAZON Y CORTEZ, A.K.A. FRANCO DE GUZMAN Y
CORTEZ, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015 - NELSON P. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 197925, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN
DALAWIS Y HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213330, November 16, 2015 - ALELI C. ALMADOVAR, GENERAL MANAGER ISAWAD, ISABELA
CITY, BASILAN PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN
CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H.
DATAYAN III, Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760, November 16, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v.
RETIRED JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), CALBAYOG CITY,
SAMAR AND RONALDO C. DIONEDA, CLERK OF COURT OF THE MTCC, CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 195654, November 25, 2015 - REYNALDO INUTAN, HELEN CARTE, NOEL AYSON, IVY CABARLE,
NOELJAMILI, MARITES HULAR, ROLITOAZUCENA, RAYMUNDO TUNOG, ROGER BERNAL, AGUSTEV ESTRE,
MARILOU SAGUN, AND ENRIQUE LEDESMA, JR., Petitioners, v. NAPAR CONTRACTING & ALLIED
SERVICES, NORMAN LACSAMANA, JONAS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND PHILIP YOUNG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015 - UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED
COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB] AND/OR PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [PDIC],
JAKOB VAN DER SLUIS AND ROBERT T.CHUA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015 - CABIB ALONTO TANOG, Petitioner, v. HON. RASAD G.
BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, 12th Judicial Region, MARAWI CITY,
AND GAPO SIDIC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015 - FRANCISCO T. INOCENCIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY
PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 203883, November 10, 2015 - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE INC.,
Petitioner, v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., QUEZON CITY MAYOR AND
EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANCO DE ORO BANKING CORPORATION), Respondents.;
G.R. NO. 203930 - J.M. TUASON & CO., AND TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE, INC. AND QUEZON CITY MAYOR, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217456, November 24, 2015 - MARILOU S. LAUDE AND MESEHILDA S. LAUDE, Petitioners, v.
HON. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 74, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE CITY
OF OLONGAPO; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS; HON. GEN. GREGORIO PIO P. CATAPANG, CHIEF
OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; HON. EMILIE FE DELOS SANTOS, CHIEF CITY
PROSECUTOR OF OLONGAPO CITY; AND L/CPL JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015 - MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D. GONZALES,
Petitioners, v. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG HWAN JANG A.K.A.
STEVE JANG, SANG RAK KIM, MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI II, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015 - PHIL-AIR CONDITIONING CENTER, Petitioner, v. RCJ LINES AND
ROLANDO ABADILLA, JR., Respondent.

A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015 - ELENA BIETE LEONES VDA. DE MILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVENIDO
REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 205915, November 10, 2015 - ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., Petitioner, v. CLARK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. - JUDGMENT [BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT]

G.R. No. 203087, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO
ZABALA y BALADA AND ROMEO ALBIUS JR. y BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 201830, November 10, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS TANODBAYAN, AND HON. GERARD A. MOSQUERA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
201882 - LERMA S. PRUDENTE AND DAMASO T. AMBRAY, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 188372, November 25, 2015 - BEAMS PHILIPPINE EXPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
MARIANITA CASTILLO AND NIDA QUIRANTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAMAD
AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "MHADS" AND BAINHOR AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "BHADS,", Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 188118, November 23, 2015 - FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Petitioner, v. FORTUNE
SEA CARRIER, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015 - ARSENIO A. AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND SALVADOR S. PILLOS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 210616, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE SALIBAD
Y DILO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 174115, November 09, 2015 - PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A), BENJAMIN R.
PUNONGBAYAN., JOSE G. ARAULLO, GREGORIO S. NAVARRO, ALFREDO V. DAMIAN AND JESSIE C.
CARPIO, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO PONCE LEPON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 189229, November 23, 2015 - REYNALDO NOBLADO, JIMMY ARAGON, ARTURO MALAYO,
MARCIANO VICTORIA, ELINO DALANON, JOSE ESTRIL, DOMINGO MALUPENG, ALFREDIE RAYTA,
ROMULO RECOMES, ADRIAN VERCELES, RUEL MAD RON A, RUBEN MIRAFUENTES, ARNULFO MALAYO,
JAIME REMIAS, JELMER BEROLLA, EDIL CASTILLO, FELICIDAD ROSIMA, MITCHEL VICTORIA, DANIEL
MALUPENG, ZOSIMO RANAS, ROSIETA RAYTA, RAFAEL TUMIMBANG, FLORENCIO VICTORIA, ERNESTO
VICTORIA, CERIA ORTIZ, RAUL ADRA, AND VICENTE CUACHIN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,
NAMELY: LILIA LORENO CUACHIN, NILO L. CUACHIN, LEONARDO L. CUACHIN, JUDITH L. CUACHIN, VILMA
CUACHIN LLANZANA, ELVIE CUACHIN MANTES, CRISTINA CUACHIN SARCIA, LILIBETH CUACHIN BELORIA,
AIDA CUACHIN MIRANDILLA, JULIET CUACHIN AWA, Petitioners, v. PRTNCESITA K. ALFONSO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
SIMBULAN ARCEO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 162032, November 25, 2015 - RURAL BANK OF MALASIQUI, INC., Petitioner, v. ROMEO M.
CERALDE AND EDUARDO M. CERALDE, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 175378, November 11, 2015 - MULTI-INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DATA SYSTEM, INC.,
Petitioner, v. RUEL MARTINEZ, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-11-2992 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8-156-RTC), November 09, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ROGER D. COREA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39,
POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTOBATO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION
CO. LTD./ CYPRUS, LIGAYA C. DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. BRAULIO A. OSIAS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015 - EDITHA B. SAGUIN AND LANI D. GRADO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 209284, November 10, 2015 - RENEE B. TANCHULING, AND THE HEIRS OF VICENTE N. Y.
TANCHULING, NAMELY REBECCA TANCHULING-TAN, RITA TANCHULING-MAPA, ROSEMARIE
TANCHULING-SALINAS, AND VINCENT RAYMOND B. TANCHULING, Petitioners, v. SOTERO C. CANTELA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONITO B.
ASIGNAR, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213679, November 25, 2015 - JAY H. LICAYAN, Petitioner, v. SEACREST MARITIME
MANAGEMENT, INC., CLIPPER FLEET MANAGEMENT, A/S AND/OR REDENTOR ANAYA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192629, November 25, 2015 - FILINVEST LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. EDUARDO R. ADIA, LITO M.
ADIGUE, CANDIDO M. AMPARO, MARINO S. AMPARO, RODOLFO S. AMPARO, FLORDELIZA L. ARIAS,
BALBINO M. ATIENZA, PEDRO M. ATIENZA, DALMACIO C. AVANILLA, PASTOR M. AVANILLA, VENACIO P.
BAUTISTA, RODOLFO S. BERGADO, ENRIQUE R. BRABANTE, EMMA D. BUBAN, JUANITO A. CANDARE,
ROMEO O. CANDARE, ANTONIO M. CATAPANG, EDUARDO A. CATAPANG, GRACIANO C. CATAPANG,
HERMINIO V. CATAPANG, JUANA P. CATAPANG, REYNALDO P. CATAPANG, ROMEO A. CATAPANG,
RODOLFO A. CATAPANG, VICTORIANO A. CATAPANG, JUAN D. CENTOS, FERNANDO B. CERNETCHEZ,
EDUARDO C. CREENCIA, ARNEL N. M. CREMA, REYNALDO B. CRISTAL, MOISES CUBCUBIN, DELSO
POBLETO, SALVADOR M. DE LEON, MELQUIADES P. DESCALSO, GREGORIO P. DINO, ROBERTO L.
DOMINO, CELSO R. ESCALLAR, ARMAND P. ESCUADRO, ELISA C. FELICIANO, PASTOR C. FERRER, ERLINDO
M. FORMARAN, LEONARDO D. GARINO, RAFAEL R. GRANADO, ALMARIO IBANEZ, CASIMIRO P. IBANEZ,
CEFERINO P. IBANEZ, MIGUEL V. IBANEZ, MONTANO V. IBANEZ, CESAR N. JECIEL, ALFREDO B. LAURENTE,
EFIGENIA B. LAURENTE, CELSO C. MEDINA, EDUARDO A. PANGANIBAN, ROMEO C. PASCUA, DANILO L.
PAULMINO, LAURO A. PEGA, LEONARDO M. PEREZ, FELIPE V. PETATE, LEONARDO V. PETATE,
ESTANISLAO PORTO, MAXIMO D. PORTO, GREGORIO L. REYES, JOSE L. REYES, LEONARDO M.
SALINGYAGA, DEMETRIO A. SALONGA, MANOLITO G. SORILLA, HERMOGENES L. TORRES, JUANITO M.
TORRES, MARIANO B. TAGLE, MARIO D. TAGLE, AND SANCHO V. VILLA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 185058, November 09, 2015 - JOVITA S. MANALO, Petitioner, v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY,
FR. JOEL TABORA AND MR. EDWIN BERNAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217380, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO
CUESTA Y ASTORGA A.K.A BOYET CUBILLA Y QUINTANA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 189509, November 23, 2015 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. G & P
BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, SPOUSES ELPIDIO AND ROSE VIOLET PARAS, SPOUSES JESUS AND MA.
CONSUELO PARAS AND VICTORIA PARAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 208844, November 10, 2015 - F & S VELASCO COMPANY, INC., IRWIN J. SEVA, ROSINA B.
VELASCO-SCRIBNER, MERCEDEZ SUNICO, AND JOSE SATURNINO O. VELASCO, Petitioners, v. DR.
ROMMEL L. MADRID, PETER PAUL L. DANAO, MANUEL L. ARIMADO, AND MAUREEN R. LABALAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 170458, November 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ASSET
PRIVATIZATION TRUST, NOW PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO
M. TATLONGHARI, DOMINGO P. UY, GUILLERMO P. UY, HINOSAN MOTORS CORPORATION, AND
WESTERN GUARANTY CORPORATION, Respondents.
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > November 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 202859,
November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN CO., LTD., AND
ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H. DATAYAN III,
Respondent.:

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN
CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H.
DATAYAN III, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON
KISEN CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON
VINCENT H. DATAYAN III, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015

NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA,
Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H. DATAYAN III,1Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

As a rule, the death of a seafarer during the term of his employment makes his employer liable for death
benefits. The employer, may, however, be exempt from liability if it can successfully establish that the
seafarer's death was due to a cause attributable to his own willful act.2

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails title February 22, 2012 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119775. The CA granted the Petition for Certiorari filed therewith and reversed
and set aside the October 28, 2010 Decision4 and March 15, 2011 Resolution5 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 07-000536-10, which, in turn, affirmed the May 31, 2010
Decision6 of Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni (LA) dismissing the complaint in NLRC-NCR OFW Case No.
(M)05-07052-09.

Likewise challenged is the July 24, 2012 CA Resolution7 denying the motion for reconsideration for lack
of merit.

Factual Antecedents

On August 8, 2007, New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMA), for and on behalf of St. Paul Maritime
Corp. (SPMC), employed Simon Vincent Datayan II (Simon) as deck cadet on board the vessel Corona
Infinity. His employment was for nine months with basic monthly salary of US$23 5.00.8 Prior to his
deployment, Simon underwent pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for
sea duties. On August 17, 2007, he boarded the vessel and assumed his duties as deck cadet.9

On December 30,2007, at 12:40 a.m., the Master authorized the conduct of an emergency fire drill in
which the crew participated. At about 1:25 a.m., he declared that Simon jumped overboard. A futile
search-and-rescue operation ensued. After a few weeks, Simon was declared missing and was presumed
dead.10

Simon's father, Vincent H. Datayan (respondent), alleged that he went to NFMA to claim death benefits
but his claim was unheeded.11 On May 11, 2009, he filed a complaint12 for death benefits and
attorney's fees against NFMA, Taiyo Nippon Kisen Co., Ltd.,13 and Angelina T. Rivera (petitioners).
Respondent averred that because Simon died during the term of his employment, the provisions of the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) among All Japan Seamen's Union, Associated Marine Officers' and
Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), and the International Mariners Management Association
of Japan, must be applied in the grant of death benefits and burial assistance in his favor, being the heir
of Simon.14

Respondent also stated that the fire drill was conducted at 12:40 a.m. where there was heavy
concentration of fishing boats in the area; and during which the water temperature was expected to
cause hypothermia. He asserted that petitioners were presumed to be at fault or had acted negligently,
unless they could prove that Simon's death was due to causes not legally compensable.15 He declared
that there was no evidence that Simon committed suicide and maintained that his death was a result of
negligence and reckless instruction of the Master.16

On the other hand, petitioners alleged that on December 29/2007, the crew, except those on duty, were
in the mess hall for a birthday celebration. They stated that Simon was invited by the Master to join the
party but he refused.17 At about 12:40 a.m. of December 30, 2007, the Master ordered the conduct of a
fire and emergency drill. After the drill, a crew meeting was held where the Master reprimanded Simon
for his poor performance. They stated that Simon left even before the meeting was concluded. Thus, the
Master ordered the crew to search for him. At about 1:25 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. of December 30, 2007,
Raymond Ocleasa (Ocleasa) saw Simon jump overboard.18

Additionally, petitioners declared that they exerted efforts to search, locate and rescue Simon.19 They
alleged that the vessel retraced its course to where he fell. The Master also informed the Japan Coast
Guard about the incident. In response, the Yokohama Coastguard Patrol conducted a search-and-rescue
operation to no avail.20

Petitioners also averred that during a search made on the vessel, a note from Simon was found.21

Petitioners argued that respondent had no cause of action against them because Simon's death was a
result of his (Simon's) deliberate act. They insisted that based on the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (SEC) and CBA, a complainant is not entitled to
death benefits when the cause of the seaman's death was the latter's willful act.22 Petitioners added
that the Master's Report, Statement of Facts, Marine Note of Protest and Investigation Report
conclusively proved that Simon committed suicide. They stated that this conclusion was bolstered by the
suicide note found on the vessel, signed by Simon himself.23
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On May 31, 2010, the LA dismissed the complaint.24 The LA held that Simon's suicide was established by
the evidence on record. Specifically, the Master's Report, as corroborated by Simon's suicide note,
showed that he voluntarily jumped overboard. The LA stated that ''the signature of the deceased
seafarer in said note and in his POEA Contract would show similarity, if not identity. To say that it was
fabricated or concocted will not lessen the credibility of the suicide note, absent any concrete evidence
to the contrary."25cralawred

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA Decision.26 Like the LA, the NLRC gave probative weight to the
suicide note, the Master's Report, along with other pieces of documentary evidence adduced, to
establish that Simon committed suicide. It held that considering that the death of the seafarer was due
to his willful act, then his heir is not entitled to his death benefits.

On March 15, 2011, the NLRC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration.27

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA maintaining that there was no evidence that
Simon committed suicide hence his death is compensable.

On February 22, 2012, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,28 finding for respondent, the decretal
portion of which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed October 28, 2010 Decision and March
15,2011 Resolution of public respondent are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered
ordering private respondents New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. and/or Taiyo Nippon Kisen Co., Ltd.
and Angelina T. Rivera to pay petitioner Vincent H. Datayan as heir of Simon Vincent H. Datayan II, the
following:

US$50,000.00 or its Philippine currency equivalent as death benefits in accordance with the 2000 POEA
Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board
Ocean[-]Going Vessels;

US$1,000.00 or is [sic] Philippine currency equivalent as burial assistance;

P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;

Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary awards; and

Legal interest on the foregoing amounts from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.29ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

cralawlawlibrary

The CA explained that it was beyond question that Simon died aboard the vessel and during the
effectivity of his contract, thus, respondent is entitled to receive death benefits arising therefrom. It
found that petitioners' evidence failed to prove that Simon committed suicide; and ruled that the
Master who executed and signed the Master's Report, Marine Note of Protest and Statement of Facts
failed to give positive testimony ascertaining Simon's actual suicide. It further pointed out that the crew
members who signed the Investigation. Report had no personal knowledge of Simon's suicide. It added
that Ocleasa, the alleged witness of the incident, did not sign the report or issue a sworn statement on
the matter.

In addition, the CA stated that Simon underwent PEME and was not declared emotionally unfit. As such,
it gave no probative weight to the alleged suicide note of Simon.
Finally, the CA reasoned that in computing the death benefits in favor of respondent, the applicable
provisions are those under the POEA SEC not the CBA which covers disability benefits only; moreover,
there was no evidence that Simon was an AMOSUP member.

On July 24,2012, the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.30 Hence, petitioners filed the
instant Petition arguing that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

x x x the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in awarding death benefits in favor
of respondent Mr. Vincent H. Datayan II despite the ruling of this Honorable Court in the case of Reyes
vs. Maxim's Tea House, that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they
coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect
and even finality by appellate courts.

x x x the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in holding that the death of the
deceased seafarer was compensable as the defense of suicide was not established with substantial
evidence despite the suicide note made by the deceased seafarer whose authenticity was affirmed by
the Labor Arbiter and the First Division of the NLRC.32

x x x the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in awarding damages, attorney's
fees and legal interest in favor of respondent. The award of damages and attorney's fees has no basis as
the denial of respondent's claim for death benefits was done in good faith. Further, the award of legal
interests has no basis in fact and in law.33

cralawlawlibrary

Petitioners submit that the documentary evidence established that Simon killed himself, which makes
respondent not entitled to death benefits. They contend the LA and the NLRC found said documents to
be authentic and are sufficient proof that the cause of Simon's death was his willful act of committing
suicide.

Petitioners posit that the CA erred in holding that the best evidence to prove Simon's alleged suicide
was his body, which was never found. They added that it would be unjust to hold that the fact of death
was established but its cause was not shown from the evidence on record. They further aver that to
follow this line of reasoning the fact of death must be established by clear and convincing evidence. As
such, according to petitioners, respondent's cause of action would have accrued only after four years
from the time Simon was presumed dead on December 30, 2007.

Likewise, petitioners state that the Marine Note of Protest, Master's Report, Statement of Facts and
Investigation Report were not hearsay evidence because they were official documents issued by the
Master. Also, they point out that these documents were notarized and were authenticated by an
affidavit signed by the Master.

Petitioners also explain that the absence of signature of Ocleasa was addressed in the Investigation
Report. The report indicated that Ocleasa had already disembarked when the investigation was
conducted; he, nonetheless, reported to the local agents and narrated what he witnessed on the vessel.

Petitioners emphasize the finding of the LA that the signatures in the alleged suicide note and in the
POEA contract were the same, if not identical.

Lastly, petitioners allege that damages were improperly awarded in favor of respondent considering that
necessary procedures were undertaken to locate Simon. They also state that investigation was
conducted to gather information from the crew regarding the circumstances surrounding his death.

For his part, respondent reiterates that there was no evidence that Simon committed suicide and that
his death was a result of the Master's negligence. He insists that the alleged suicide note could not have
been written by Simon considering the proximity of events, that is, at 12:40 a.m., the fire drill was
conducted and at 1:25 a.m., Simon was said to have jumped overboard. He asserts that he is entitled to
compensation for the death of his son because he had established that he died during the term of his
employment contract with petitioners.

Issue

Is the CA correct in finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's
claim for death benefits?
Our Ruling

In labor cases, the review of the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court involves the determination of
the legal correctness of the CA Decision. This means that the Court must ascertain whether the CA
properly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC Decision. Simply
put, "in testing for legal correctness, the Court views the CA Decision in the same context that the
petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it."34 It entails a limited review of the acts of the
NLRC, of whether it committed errors of jurisdiction. It does not cover the issue of whether the NLRC
committed any error of judgment, unless there is a showing that its findings and conclusion were
arbitrarily arrived at or were not based on substantial evidence.35

In this case, both the LA and the NLRC ruled that respondent's claim for death benefits was without
basis. They agreed that Simon committed suicide, as principally established by the Master's Report and
Simon's suicide note. The CA ruled otherwise. It gave no weight to the suicide note because Simon
underwent the PEME and was declared fit to work. The CA also refused to accord probative value to the
Master's Report, among others, because the Master gave no positive testimony on Simon's actual
suicide.

To determine whether the CA correctly found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that
there is substantial evidence - or such relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion36 - that Simon committed suicide, it becomes imperative to resolve whether the
parties discharged their respective burdens of proof and the corresponding shift in the burden of
evidence in this case.37

As claimant for death benefits, respondent has the burden to prove by substantial evidence that his
son's death is work-related and that it transpired during the term of his employment contract. In this
respect, respondent has discharged his burden. It is beyond question that Simon died during the term of
his contract. The next question is whether Simon's death was due to his deliberate act. If such is the
case, then respondent is not entitled to death benefits. That Simon's death was a result of his willful act
is a matter of defense.38 Thus, petitioners have the burden to prove this circumstance by substantial
evidence.

The Court finds that petitioners discharged their burden to prove that Simon committed suicide. The
Master's Report39 clearly described the situation on the vessel prior to, during and after the time that
Simon went overboard, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x WE CONDUCTED EMERGENCY FIRE DRILL AT NIGHT TIME 0040LT 30th DECEMBER 2007/ 1540TC
29th DECEMBER 2007. AFTER THE DRILL AT ABOUT 0055LT WE CONDUCTED MEETING AT CREW
MESSHALL FOR MASTER'S EVALUATION AND AT THE SAME TIME SAFETY MEETING DURING
EVALUATION, I STRONGLY MENTIONED ABOUT HIS (SIMON'S) BEHAVIOUR ON BOARD THE SHIP TO
MOTIVATE HIM AND TO IMPROVE HIS PERFORMANCE SINCE HE IS A DECK CADET AND ABOUT TO BE
PROMOTED AS ORDINARY SEAMAN x x x

x x x AFTER THE MEETING [I] OBSERVED THAT HE WAS NOT AROUND IN THE MESSHALL. KNOWING
THAT HE WAS SLIGHTED I ORDER TO LOOK FOR HIM IN WHICH THE CREW COMPLIED. ONE OF THE
CREW WIPER RAYMOND C. OCLEASA xxx SAW DECK CADET SIMON VINCENT H. DATAYAN II WAS
STANDING [SIC] ON THE FAIRLEAD PORT QUARTER AND AT THAT POINT HE (WIPER) SAW TORCH LIGHT
PASS HIS (DECK CADET) FACE AND CAUGHT HIS (DECK CADET) ATTENTION THEN WHEN HE ATTEMPTED
TO JUMP, HE (WIPER) CALLED HIS NAME BUT HE (DECK CADET) JUMPED OVERBOARD. THEN WIPER
WENT TO SHIP'S OFFICE AND DIAL 0 FOR PUBLIC ADDRESS AND SHOUT MANOVERBOARD PORTSIDE.
BUT THAT ANNOUNCEMENT WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH. SO WHEN I REACH THE BRIDGE I ASKED
SECOND OFFICER WHICH SIDE HE FELL OVERBOARD BUT SECOND OFFICER ALSO NOT SURE [SIC] WHICH
SIDE HE FELL. IN ORDER TO RETURN I ORDERED HARD STARBOARD TO MANEUVER WILLIAMSON TURN
AND RETURN TO RECIPROCAL COURSE AND DROP LIFEBOUY WITH BOUYANT SMOKE SIGNAL AND SELF
IGNITING LIGHT. TURN ON ALL DECK LIGHTS AND POSTED LOOKOUTS x x x40ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

cralawlawlibrary

At the same time, the Statement of Facts41 submitted by petitioners indicated that after the vessel
retraced its course to where Simon fell, the incident was reported to the Japan Coast Guard and to
petitioners' local agents in the Philippines. The Yokohama Coastguard Patrol also conducted search-and-
rescue but to no avail.

Moreover, in their Investigation Report,42 the crew described Simon as a "very silent person, bright
student, [f]ast learner but very sensitive person and will not talk unless you x x x question him. No
problems with anybody since he embarked the vessel [sic]."

The Master Report and Statement of Facts were executed by the Ship Master Arthur Evangelista, who
also subscribed and swore to his statements before a Notary Public.43
In Unicol Management Services, Inc. v. Malipot,44 the Court considered the Master's Report and the
Investigation Report, among others, in ruling that the seaman's beneficiaries were not entitled to death
benefits. It noted that these documents completely detailed the events that transpired prior to and the
circumstances leading to the discovery of his death by suicide.

Similarly, in the instant case, the Master's Report as well as the Statement of Facts described the events
that occurred prior to, during and after the incident when Simon went overboard. In particular, Simon
declined the Master's invitation for him to join the party; thereafter, the Master reprimanded him
because he performed poorly in the drill; Simon left the meeting and was later seen to jump overboard
by Ocleasa. Added to this narration is the statement of the crew in the Investigation Report that Simon
was a "very sensitive" person.

Also, the Investigation Report addressed the question on why Ocleasa did not sign said report. As stated
therein, he already disembarked from the vessel when the report was executed and was investigated at
the (local) office, where he stated that he saw Simon jump overboard.45

More importantly, the fact that Simon committed suicide is bolstered by the suicide note that he
executed. His note46 reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

0100LT Dec. 30, 2007

Dear loved ones & shipmates,

I cannot take it anymore. Sorry for letting you pay for my shortcomings. I ask you to let me end my life. I
cannot bear the shame of letting you all endure all what is due me. But I happily end my life because I
know it is the only [way] I can repay you [sic]. You suffered for not letting myself obey my Master for a
drink [sic], of which, he commenced a drill w/out anyones [sic] idea[.]

Sayonara & God bless.

w/ you always.
Simon

cralawlawlibrary

The suicide note is informative as to why Simon committed suicide. He declined to join the party held
prior to the drill and was reprimanded for his poor performance in said drill. It can, thus, be inferred
from the note that he blamed himself for the difficulties he assumed to have caused his colleagues.

As such, to refute petitioners' position that Simon committed suicide, the burden of evidence shifts to
respondent. Nonetheless, respondent failed to discharge his burden. Respondent relies on the alleged
negligence of the Master in ordering the conduct of the drill and argues that Simon could not have
written a suicide note because of the proximity of the time when the drill was conducted and the time
when Simon jumped overboard. Respondent presented no proof that said suicide note was fabricated,
as no specimen of Simon's handwriting was submitted to prove that it was not written by him.

On the contrary, the Court shares the observation of the LA that the signature47 in the suicide note and
the signature48 of Simon in his employment contract appear to be the same.

Hence, by substantial evidence, there are adequate reasons and proof that Simon committed suicide.

Under Section 20(D) of the POEA SEC,49 no compensation or benefits shall arise in case of death of a
seafarer resulting from his willful act, provided that the employer could prove that such death is
attributable to the seafarer.

Although Simon died during the term of his contract with petitioners, still, respondent is not entitled to
receive benefits arising from his death. As clearly established, Simon died by his willful act of committing
suicide and death under that circumstance is not compensable under the POEA SEC.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC Decision
which affirmed the LA Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The February 22, 2012 Decision and July 24, 2012 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119775 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The October 28, 2010
Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 07-000536-10 is REINSTATED and
AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the complaint in NLRC-NCR OFW Case No. (M)05-07052-09 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Reyes,* Perlas-Bernabe,** and Leonen, JJ., concur.chanrobleslaw

Endnotes:

* Per Special Order No. 2274 elated November 10,2015,

** Per Special Order No. 2271 dated November % 2015.

1 Referred in some parts of the records as Datayan II.

2 Crewlink, Inc. v, Teringtering, G. R. No. 166803, October i 1,2012,684 SCR A 12,21.

3 CA rollo, pp. 236-232; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate
Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.

4 NLRC records, pp. 134-139; penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Presiding
Commissioner Gsrardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco.

5 Id. at 147-148.

6 Id. at 99-104.
7 CA rollo, pp. 288-289.

8 NLRC records, p. 36.

9 Id. at 15.

10 Id. at 15-16.

11 Id. at 16.

12 Id. at 1-2.

13 Per Marine Note of Protest, id. at 63, M/V Corona Infinity is a Panamanian flag vessel owned by
Corona Infinity Shipholding S.A.; and managed by Taiyo Nippon Kisen Co., Ltd.

14 NLRC records, pp. 17-19, 28.

15 Id. at 18-19.

16 Id. at 20.

17 Id. at 44-45.

18 Id. at 45.
19 Id. at 92.

20 Id. at 46.

21 Id. at 47.

22 Id. at 48.

23 Id. at 51.

24 Id. at 99-104.

25 Id. at 103.

26 Id. at 134-139.

27 Id. at 147-148.

28 CA rollo, pp. 236-252.

29 Id. at 251-252.

30 Id. at 288-289.

31Rollo, p. 43-44.
32 Id. at 45.

33 Id. at 54.

34Agile Maritime Resources, Inc. v. Siador, G.R. No. 191034, October 1,2014, 737 SCRA 360, 368

35 Id. at 368-369.

36Crewlink, Inc. v. Teringtering, supra note 2.

37 Agile Maritime Resources, Inc. v. Siador, supra note 34 at 372-373.

38Crewlink, Inc. v. Teringtering, supra note 2 at 19.

39 NLRC records, p. 65.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 66-67.

42 Id. at 68-69.

43 Id. at 71-72.
44 G.R. No. 206562, January 21,2015.

45 NLRC records, p. 69.

46 Id. at 70.

47 Id.

48 Id. at 62.

49 Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean
Going Vessels

Section 20(D). No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity,
disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his
duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is
directly attributable to the seafarer.

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN
CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H.
DATAYAN III, Respondent.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw
1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924
1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949
1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974
1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

cralaw

Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

RED