THE
HEIRS OF REYNALDO A. ANDAG, namely VENERANDA B. ANDAG, JAYMARK B. ANDAG, HONEY
GRACE B. ANDAG and KIM PHILIP B. ANDAG, represented by their ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
VENERANDA B. ANDAG, petitioners, vs. DMC CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RESOURCES INC.,
JORGE A. CONSUNJI, president, and AGUSTINE B. GONZALEZ, Area Manager,
respondents
G.R. No. 244361 | July 13, 2020
TOPIC:
Health, Safety and Social Welfare Benefits
FACTS:
Reynaldo was employed by DMCI as Second
Mate on its tugboat, the M/T Alexander Paul.
On October 18, 2013, as the tugboat was
towing an overloaded barge, a recoiling rope accidentally struck Reynaldo
causing him to be thrown towards the ship’s iron bars. Reynaldo was rushed to
the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Months after, DMCI contacted petitioners
and told them that they would give them P200,000.00 as compensation for
Reynaldo’s death under the condition that they would execute a waiver and
quitclaim in its favor. After refusing the offer, petitioners no longer hear
from DMCI, prompting them to send a formal demand letter, which the latter
ignore. Thus, they were constrained to file a complaint against respondent
before the NLRC for the payment of death compensation/benefits and other
monetary claims.
In its defense, DMCI maintained that
petitioners should recover death benefits not from them as Reynaldo’s employer
but from the State Insurance Fund.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DMCI is liable to pay
petitioner heirs for the death of Reynaldo
RULING:
While Reynaldo was indeed employed by DMCI
as a seafarer, it must nevertheless be pointed out that he was merely deployed
in an inter-island vessel sailing domestic waters. This being the case, his employment
was not covered by any POEA-Standard Employment Contract typical to employment
contracts involving seafarers sailing in international waters – a contract
which specifically contain provisions which make an employer liable should a
seafarer perish while on duty. Absent any specific provision in his employment
contract with DMCI, Reynaldo’s death on duty is governed by the Labor Code,
particularly, Articles 174, 178, 179, and 200(a).
In this regard, case law instructs that “the
clear intent of the law is that the employer should be relieved of the
obligation of directly paying his employees compensation for work-connect
illness or injury on the theory that this is part of the cost of production or
business activity; and that no longer would there be need for adversarial
proceedings between an employer and his employee in which there were specific
legal presumption operation in favor of the employee and statutorily specified
defenses available to an employer.” Hence, “once the employer pays his share to
the fund, all obligation on his part to his employees is ended.” Given the
foregoing, DMCI is not liable for Reynaldo’s death benefits as it is the State
Insurance Fund, particularly the SSS, which is liable therefor.
Comments
Post a Comment