Professional Documents
Culture Documents
12 - New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
12 - New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
*
NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO
NIPPON KISEN CO., LTD., and ANGELINA T. RIVERA,
petitioners, vs. VINCENT H. DATAYAN — HEIR OF
SIMON VINCENT H. DATAYAN III,1 respondent.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
1 Referred in some parts of the records as Datayan II.
678
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 onboard the vessel Corona Infinity. His
employment was for nine months with basic monthly
salary of US$235.00.8 Prior to his deployment, Simon
underwent preemployment medical examination (PEME)
and was declared fit for sea duties. On
_______________
680
_______________
9 Id., at p. 15.
10 Id., at pp. 15-16.
11 Id., at p. 16.
12 Id., at pp. 1-2.
13 Per Marine Note of Protest, id., at p. 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.
681
VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 681
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
_______________
682
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
_______________
22 Id., at p. 48.
23 Id., at p. 51.
24 Id., at pp. 99-104.
25 Id., at p. 103.
26 Id., at pp. 134-139.
683
VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 683
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
_______________
684
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
SO ORDERED.29
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:
I. 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
v. 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
_______________
685
VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 685
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
_______________
686
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
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.
687
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
_______________
688
_______________
689
_______________
40 Id.
41 Id., at pp. 66-67.
690
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan
_______________
691
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.
_______________
46 Id., at p. 70.
692
_______________
47 Id.
48 Id., at p. 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.
693
SO ORDERED.
_______________
** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2274 dated
November 10, 2015.
*** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2271 dated
November 9, 2015.