CASE DIGEST: Interorient Maritime Enterprises v. NLRC

 


INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., FIRCROFT SHIPPING CORPORATION and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CONSTANCIA PINEDA, respondents
G.R. No. 115497                |              Sept. 16, 1996

FACTS:

Jeremias Pineda was contracted to work as Oiler on board the vessel, MV Amazonia, from Dec. 21, 1988  to Sept. 28,1989. When he finished his contract, he was discharged from the port of Dubai for repatriation to Manila. During his layover in Bangkok, Thailand, he disembarked on his own free will and failed to join the connecting flight to Hongkong. During which, he was shot by a Thai Policeman and died. The police report submitted to the Philippine Embassy in Bangkok confirmed that it was Pineda who ‘approached and tried to stab the police sergeant with a knife and that therefore he was forced to pull out his gun and shot Pineda.

The deceased’s mother, Constancia Pineda, filed for death compensation benefits against Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. and it foreign principal, Fircroft Shipping Corporation and the Times Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. They averred that the deceased seaman was suffering from mental disorder aggravated by threats on his life by his fellow seamen, the Ship Captain should not have allowed him to travel alone.

Respondent agency averred that they are not liable to pay any death/burial benefits pursuant to the provisions of Par. 6, Section C, Part II, POEA-SEC which states that ‘no compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death resulting from a willfull act on his own life by the seaman’; that the deceased seaman died due to his own wilfull act in attacking a policeman in Bangkok who shot him in self-defense.” 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the local crewing or manning agent and its foreign principal are liable for the death of a Filipino seaman-employee who, after having been discharged, was killed in-transit while being repatriated home

RULING:

Though the termination of the employment contract was duly effected in Dubai, still, the responsibility of the foreign employer to see to it that Pineda was duly repatriated to the point of hiring subsisted. Section 4, Rule VIII of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment clearly provides for the duration of the mandatory personal accident and life insurance covering accidental death, dismemberment and disability of overseas workers:

“Section 4. Duration of Insurance Coverage.—The minimum coverage shall take effect upon payment of the premium and shall be extended worldwide, on and off the job, for the duration of the worker’s contract plus 60 calendar days after termination of the contract of employment’, provided that in no case shall the duration of the insurance coverage be less than one year.”

The foreign employer may not have been obligated by its contract to provide a companion for a returning employee, but it cannot deny that it was expressly tasked by its agreement to assure the safe return of said worker. The uncaring attitude displayed by petitioners who, knowing fully well that its employee had been suffering from some mental disorder, nevertheless still allowed him to travel home alone is appalling.


Comments