Unicol Management Services, Inc., Link Marine Pte. Ltd. and Victoriano B. Tirol, III vs. Delia Malipot

Posted Jan 21, 2015

By Anonymous

6 min read

Case Title and Citation

UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LINK MARINE PTE. LTD. and/or VICTORIANO B. TIROL, III, Petitioners, vs. DELIA MALIPOT, in behalf of GLICERIO MALIPOT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206562, January 21, 2015
Supreme Court - Third Division
Ponente: Peralta, J.

Facts

On July 16, 2008, Glicerio Malipot was processed for hiring by Unicol Management Services, Inc. for and on behalf of Link Marine Pte. Ltd. to serve as Chief Engineering Officer on the M/V Heredia Sea with a monthly salary of US$2,500 and a contract stated as four (4) months.
Pre-employment medical examination by petitioners’ designated physicians showed he was fit to work.
He boarded the vessel and left the Philippines on August 18, 2008.
By November 16, 2008, he manifested a desire to end his contract and gave notice to petitioners to secure a replacement; the Master relayed this to petitioners’ Port Captain, who allegedly refused to allow him to leave and threatened him with arrest and loss of future employment if he returned to the Philippines.
In December 2008 he experienced chest pains and palpitations; on December 10, 2008 he was seen at Fujairah Port Medical Center and was diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain and emotional trauma/illness.
There is dispute as to the contract end date: respondent asserted a four-month contract ending December 18, 2008; petitioners’ contract indicated four to six months ending February 18, 2009.
On January 13, 2009, petitioners received information that Malipot died by hanging aboard the M/V Heredia Sea; the Philippine Consulate in Dubai submitted a certification and accompanying documents including a Medico-Legal Report (Fujairah) and a Death Certificate (UAE Ministry of Health).
Respondent filed a complaint for death benefits under the POEA contract before the Labor Arbiter.
On September 14, 2009, the Labor Arbiter awarded US$71,500 (death benefits, children’s share, burial expenses) plus attorney’s fees.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. On September 30, 2010, the NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint, finding death due to suicide and thus not compensable under the POEA contract; the NLRC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on December 30, 2010.
Respondent filed certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On October 29, 2012, the CA reversed the NLRC, reinstated the Labor Arbiter decision but deducted US$12,254 (quitclaim) from the award and imposed interest; CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 27, 2013.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, raising whether death by suicide is compensable under the POEA contract and contesting the CA’s factual findings.

Issues

Did seaman Glicerio Malipot commit suicide during the term of his employment contract?
Is death by suicide compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, thereby entitling the heirs to death benefits?
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error by setting aside the NLRC decision that found the death to be suicide?

Ruling

Yes - The Supreme Court found that the evidence established that Glicerio Malipot died by suicide (asphyxia due to hanging).
No - Death resulting from the seafarer’s deliberate, willful act (suicide) is excluded from compensation under Section 20(D) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract when the employer proves the death is directly attributable to the seafarer’s intentional act.
Yes - The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in overturning the NLRC because substantial evidence (medico-legal report, death certificate, investigation report, log book extracts, master’s report, and medical report) supported the conclusion of suicide; the NLRC’s dismissal was reinstated.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Standard of review: The Court stated that Rule 45 limits review to questions of law but enumerated exceptions permitting factual re-examination where findings are conflicting or when the CA manifestly overlooked relevant facts; because the NLRC and CA reached conflicting factual conclusions, the Supreme Court reviewed the record.
Admissibility of evidence: The Court recognized that the NLRC may accept evidence presented for the first time on appeal to ascertain facts speedily and objectively without strict adherence to formal rules of evidence (citing Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC and the NLRC’s powers under Article 218 of the Labor Code).
Factual findings: The Court considered:
1. The Medico-Legal Report by the Fujairah medico-legal senior consultant which reported an external examination describing a deep lacerated groove on the neck and opined the death was due to suicidal asphyxia by hanging.
2. The UAE Death Certificate indicating cause of death.
3. The investigation report, log book extracts, and master’s report which described the events prior to discovery of the body, lack of external injuries suggesting foul play, and circumstances consistent with suicide.
4. A medical report documenting prior complaints of chest pains and a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain and emotional trauma due to family problems.
Application of POEA contract: Section 20(B) provides for death benefits for work-related death during the contract term; Section 20(D) explicitly excludes compensation for death resulting from the seafarer’s willful or intentional act when the employer proves the direct attribution. The Court held petitioners met their burden to prove the death was deliberate and therefore not compensable (citing Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang and related jurisprudence).
On the quitclaim: While the CA had considered a quitclaim and deducted US$12,254 from the award, the Supreme Court’s finding that death was suicide rendered the CA’s monetary award inapplicable; the NLRC dismissal was reinstated.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

The employer is liable for POEA death benefits when death occurs during the employment contract unless the employer proves the death resulted directly from the seafarer’s willful or intentional act.
Medico-legal reports and death certificates, when corroborated by investigative reports, logbooks, master’s reports, and medical records, can constitute substantial proof of suicide.
The NLRC may admit and consider evidence submitted for the first time on appeal to arrive at an objective and speedy determination of labor disputes.
Rule 45 review by the Supreme Court is generally limited to questions of law but permits factual review in specified exceptional circumstances, including conflicting findings between tribunals.

Disposition

The petition is GRANTED.
The Decision dated October 29, 2012 and Resolution dated March 27, 2013 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision dated September 30, 2010 and Resolution dated December 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission are REINSTATED.
Effect: Respondent is not entitled to POEA death benefits because the seaman’s death was found to be suicide; the NLRC dismissal of the complaint is restored.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

None stated; the Decision reflects concurrence by the members of the Third Division as listed.

Significance / Notes

Employers may be relieved of liability for POEA death benefits if they present substantial, corroborated evidence that the seafarer’s death was an intentional act (suicide).
Medico-legal examinations, death certificates, shipboard investigation reports, logbooks, and master’s reports collectively carry significant weight in determining cause and circumstances of death at sea.
The NLRC’s discretion to admit appellate evidence facilitates substantive fact-finding in labor cases and can be upheld by higher courts when evidence supports the tribunal’s factual conclusions.
The case illustrates the limited but important circumstances under which the Supreme Court will reexamine conflicting factual findings between tribunals under Rule 45.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.