ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Third Division

Sirs and Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 16 2005.

G.R. No. 166906 (Zosima Rosario vs. Denklav Marine Services Ltd. and Denholm Crew Management Philippines, Inc.)

Before us is this petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the October 15, 2004 decision [1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79813, affirming the June 30, 2003 decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which reversed and set aside that of the Labor Arbiter in a complaint for death compensation and benefits filed by petitioner Zosima Rosario against herein respondents Denklav Marine Services Ltd. (Denklav) and Denholm Crew Management Phils., Inc. (Denholm).

Petitioner is the widow of the late Romeo Rosario. She is claiming for death benefits, additional benefits for her two minor children, funeral benefit and burial gratuity under Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Contract of Employment.

Record shows that the deceased Romeo Rosario (Romeo) was contracted by Denholm for and in behalf of its foreign principal Denklav as a "fitter" aboard various overseas vessels under several fixed-term employment contracts from 1998 to January 2000. The last contract engaged Romeo as a fitter aboard the tanker MT Endurance from April 6, 1999 to January 28, 2000.

Pursuant to the employment contract, Romeo was required to undergo a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) conducted by Denklav's designated physician. After Romeo was declared fit for employment by the examining physician, he embarked the M/T Endurance on April 6, 1999.

The contract was completed on January 28, 2000 without any untoward and unseemly events or complaints from Romeo. He signed off due to "end of contract" and was repatriated the next day. On January 31, 2000, Romeo filled-up an availability advice indicating his fitness for another tour of duty.

However, Romeo was not able to go on another tour of duty because in April 2000, he was rushed to the Asia Renal Care Dialysis Center where he was diagnosed to have "renal failure" and was advised to start Hemodialysis immediately. He was then on regular Hemodialysis, first at Asia Renal Care Dialysis Center and later, at the East Avenue Medical Center. He was confined in the latter hospital for a week before he expired on May 23, 2000 from "Hypovolimic Shock" as the immediate cause, "Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding" as the antecedent cause, "Uremic Gastritis" as underlying cause, and "End-Stage Renal Disorder" secondary to "Chronic Glomerulonephritis."

Petitioner informed Denholm of Romeo's death and inquired as to whether she was entitled to death benefits. Respondent Denholm advised her that she was not entitled to any because her husband was no longer its employee at the time of his death. She was referred instead to AMOSUP and the SSS.

On February 23, 2001, petitioner filed with the NLRC the abovementioned complaint against Denholm, alleging that her husband contracted a disease on board the M/T Endurance which eventually led to his death subsequent to the expiration of his contract of employment.

In its answer, Denholm denied liability on ground of petitioner's failure to establish a reasonable causal connection between the working conditions and duties of the deceased with the cause of his death, which is necessary because the deceased was no longer an employee of the company at the time of his death.

On February 5, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, thus:

"WHEREFORE, consistent with the foregoing tenor, judgment is hereby rendered directing the Respondents DENKLAV MARINE SERVICES LTD. and DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. to jointly and severally pay the Complainant Zosima Rosario and her two (2) minor children, namely: Llyod Camelo Rosario and Cydi Lovely Rosario, the following amounts:

(a)���� Philippine Currency equivalent of US$50,000, as death compensation for the Complainant Zosima Rosario;

(b)���� Philippine Currency equivalent of US$7,000, as death compensation for Lloyd Camelo Rosario;

(c)���� Philippine Currency equivalent of US$7,000, as death compensation for Lovely Cydi Rosario;

(d)���� Philippine Currency equivalent of US$1,000, as burial expenses; and,

(e)���� Philippine Currency equivalent of US$ 6,500, as reasonable attorney's fees.

The rest of the claims are dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis.

SO ORDERED.

On March 8, 2002, respondents interposed an appeal to the NLRC contending that Romeo's death was not compensable under the clear terms of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and that petitioner failed to prove that the death of her husband was a consequence of his employment with Denholm.

In a decision dated June 30, 2003, the NLRC reversed the appealed decision of the Labor Arbiter, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 5, 2002 is REVERSED and SET ASDE.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but her motion was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution of August 29, 2003.

Therefrom, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 79813, therein arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to respondents' appeal despite the fact that the same was never perfected; in ruling that Romeo's death is not compensable; and in finding that Romeo was contracted by respondents from 1995-1999 only instead of from August 29, 1988 up to January 28, 2000.

Petitioner insists that respondents' appeal was not perfected because they failed to attach to their appeal a Joint Declaration under oath certifying that the surety bond is genuine and that it shall be in effect until final disposition of the case.

On October 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered the herein challenged decision ^[2] cralaw denying due course to the petition:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the appellate court in its Resolution of January 11, 2005. ^[3] cralaw

Petitioner is now before us via the present recourse, reiterating the same arguments already resolved by the Court of Appeals in the herein challenged decision.

At the outset, we take note of the appellate court's finding that upon perusal of the attachments to respondents' appeal, a Joint Declaration was undeniably jointly executed by Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, the respondents and their counsel, which Joint Declaration was attached to the record of the case. Petitioner, therefore, has no basis in claiming that respondents failed to perfect their appeal. On this score, we find no reason to disturb the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in entertaining respondents' appeal thereto. ^[4] cralaw

We now come to the substantive aspect of petitioner's present recourse.

Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Contract of Employment reads:

"A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

1. In case of death of the seafarer during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US Dollars (US$50,000), and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty one (21), but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment..."

Explicit it is from the above that for death to be compensable, the death of the employee must occur "during the term of his contract". Here, Romeo's death occurred nearly four (4) months after the conclusion of his employment contract with respondent Denholm. Hence, the NLRC was correct in holding that the death was not compensable under the aforequoted provisions of the POEA Standard Contract of Employment.

True it is that the policy of the State is to give maximum aid and protection to labor, and beneficiaries may still claim the benefits under the quoted provision of the Standard Contract of Employment even if the death occurred after the termination of the contract of employment. However, to be so entitled, the cause of death must be considered work-related. An example is when the employee contracts an illness or suffers an injury during the course of his employment which results in his death shortly after the expiration of his contract. If it is sufficiently proven by the beneficiaries claiming death benefits under Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Contract of Employment that the death was a consequence of said illness or injury, the courts will grant the benefits claimed.

Petitioner asserts that Romeo's death was the result of an illness suffered during the term of his employment, and invokes the case of Wallem Maritime, Inc., et al, vs. NLRC, et al. ^[5] cralaw in support of her argument.

The reliance on Wallem is misplaced. There, this Court ruled that the fact that the worker chose to sign-off two (2) months before the actual termination of his contract was an indication that he was "already in a deteriorating condition when he left the vessel", as in fact he was hospitalized two (2) days after his repatriation and later died of "disseminated intravascular coagulations, septicemia, pulmonary congestion and multiple intestinal obstruction secondary to multiple adhesions," an ailment which this Court held to have been contracted during the deceased's employment. So it is that in Wallem the Court ruled that the worker's death was compensable under the circumstances therein obtaining.

Here, there are no indication that Romeo was already suffering from an ailment at the time of the termination of his employment contract with respondents. The illness which resulted in his death surfaced months after his repatriation. Petitioner claims that Romeo occasionally experienced an "on and off" fever, vomiting, dizziness, excruciating pain at the lower portion of his pelvic bone including his back and relieved only by means of oral medication during the term of his employment. However, no proof was presented to substantiate this claim, as indeed that there was no report of any illness suffered by petitioner's husband while on board the MT Endurance. Also, upon his arrival in the Philippines on January 29, 2000, or at any time within three working days from the date of his return, he did not require any medical treatment nor did he report to respondents any ailment being suffered by him. Instead, he immediately signed up for another tour of duty, thereby indicating that he was physically fit to take on another assignment.

Petitioner tries to circumvent these facts by claiming that Glomerulonephritis and Chronic Renal Failure, the cause of death of Romeo Rosario, do not have any symptoms and could only have been discovered if a urine test had been performed. In essence, petitioner alleges that Romeo's illness in its initial stage does not physically manifest itself. It would be too presumptive for this Court to contemplate even the probability that Romeo contracted this illness while on board the M/T Endurance. The burden is on the beneficiaries to show a reasonable connection between the causative circumstances in the employment of the deceased employee and his death or permanent total disability. Here, petitioner failed to discharge this burden.

All told, this Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in affirming the challenged decision of the NLRC.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court