ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 141172. March 6, 2000]
C.F. SHARP CO. INC., et al. vs. PETRONILA DEMETRIO, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 6 2000.
G.R. No. 141172 (C.F. Sharp Company Inc., et al. vs. Petronila Demetrio for Herself and as Legal Guardian of Peter Paul and Joel Demetrio).
Petitioner C.F. Sharp Company, Inc., as the agent of International Shipping Management, Inc., employed Jose Demetrio as Chief Cook of the vessel "Silver Pride" for 10 months, from June 8, 1993 to April 7, 1994.
On August 3, 1993, however, Demetrio was repatriated to the Philippines for medical treatment. He was found to be suffering from liver cancer from which he died on April 4, 1994.
Demetrio's heirs, herein respondents, asked from petitioner death compensation in the amount of US$64,000.00, pursuant to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Board Resolution No. 1, series of 1994, which took effect on March 20, 1994.
Petitioner insisted, however, that respondents were entitled to only US$11,000.00 as death compensation in accordance with its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Associated Marine Officer's and Seaman's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP).
Hence, respondents filed an action for underpayment of compensation and benefits due to the surviving spouse and children below 21 years of age of a seaman.
On March 17, 1997, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay respondents a total of US$58,596.98 in benefits, payable in its peso equivalent at the exchange rate at the time of payment, as well as P50,000.00 attorney's fees.
On appeal, however, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision. It held that, as Demetrio was discharged and repatriated to the Philippines on August 3, 1993, he was no longer covered by POEA Board of Resolution No. 1, series of 1994.
Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court which was eventually referred to the Court of Appeals. In its decision, promulgated on August 31, 1999, the Court of Appeals, reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition.
POEA Board Resolution No. 1, series of 1994, took effect on March 20, 1994. Its pertinent provisions are as follows:
I. Sec. C. Compensation and Benefits
1.�������� In the case of death of the seaman during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of US$50,000.00 and an additional US$7,000.00 to each child under the age of twenty one (21) but not exceeding four children at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payments.
. . . .
IV. Upon Effectivity, the new compensation and other benefits above-mentioned shall apply to any Filipino seafarers already on-board and vessel, provided: that the cause of action occurs after the said compensation and benefits take effect.
(Emphasis added)
First. Petitioner contends that the foregoing POEA board resolution does not apply to Demetrio's death since the term of his employment ended when he was repatriated on August 3, 1993.
The contention is without merit. As the Court of Appeals found:
Records [are] bereft of any evidence showing that Jose Demetrio was ever discharged from the service by private respondent. It was never shown by private respondents that Jose Demet[e]rio was dismissed by private respondents. The fact that private respondents have in their favor a valid ground to dismiss Jose Demetrio (continuo[u]s illness) does not necessarily follow that private respondents availed of the said ground and terminated the service of Jose Demetrio. . . .
In fact, petitioner paid Demetrio's heirs partial death benefits for his death on April 4, 1994 under the terms and conditions of the 1992 AMOSUP CBA, apparently because Demetrio's employment was not terminated when he was repatriated to the Philippines on August 3, 1993.
Second. Petitioner contends that even assuming Demetrio was still employed at the time of his death, he was not "on-board" the vessel when POEA Board Resolution No. 1, series of 1994 took effect on March 20, 1994, having been repatriated on August 3, 1993.
The contention is also without merit. As the Court of Appeals correctly opined:
Under the AMOSUP CBA of the parties, it is provided that a service is deemed uninterrupted when a seaman is on paid vacation, or awaiting assignment after his paid vacation, or is on leave due to medical reasons, or when interruption is not attributable to the seaman's fault or own-making.
Pursuant to this binding of the parties, the service rendered by Jose Demetri[o] shall be deemed uninterrupted from June 8, 1993 when he commenced his service on-board private respondent's vessel up to his death on April 4, 1994. It shall be deemed that Jose Demetri[o] had continuously rendered service with private respondent because he was on leave due to medical reasons.
Since Jose Demetrio is deemed to have uninterrupted service from June 8, 1993 to April 4, 1994 with private respondent, it is erroneous to rule that Jose Demetrio was not on-board the vessel on March 20, 1994 when the POEA Resolution took effect.
The phrase "any Filipino seafarers already on-board any vessel" under Section C (IV) of the POEA Resolution cannot be given a restrictive, limited interpretation to mean only Filipino seafarers who are actually on-board the vessel at the time of the effectivity of the POEA Resolution.
The POEA Resolution did not qualify the phrase "on-board" with the word actual. If the POEA Resolution intended to cover only those who are actually on-board the vessel at the time of the effectivity of the Resolution, then it could have easily added the word "actual" before the word "on-board". But the Resolution did not, implying that the term should not be limited to actual on-board seaman but shall include those who by law or by agreement of the parties are considered to be on-board.
Third. Petitioner contends that under the AMOSUP CBA, respondents can only claim compensation either under the CBA or the 1989 POEA Standard Employment Contract, both of which provide the same amount of death compensation, i.e., US$11,000.00
This issue, however, was raised by petitioner only for the first time in the present appeal. An issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal without offending basic rules of fair play and justice. (F.F. Ma�acop Construction Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 235 (1997)) Besides, POEA Board Resolution No. 1, series of 1994, clearly provides that it shall apply to any Filipino seafarer on board any vessel whose cause of action occurs after the effectivity of such resolution. In this case, as Jose Demetrio died on April 4, 1994, after said POEA board resolution took effect on March 20, 1994, Demetrio's heirs, herein respondents, are entitled to the new compensation and benefits under the same.
Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
