MARLOW
NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES, INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD. And/or MS. EILEEN
MORALES, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF RICARDO S. GANAL, GEMMA B. BORAGAY, for her
behalf and in behalf of her minor children named: RIGEM GANAL & IVAN
CHARLES GANAL; and CHARLES F. GANAL, represented by SPOUSES PROCOPIO &
VICTORIA GANAL, respondents
G.R. No. 220168 | June 7, 2017
FACTS:
Ricardo Ganal worked as an oiler aboard MV
Stadt Hamburg starting Sept. 20, 2011. On the evening of April 15, 2012, the
crewmen of MV Stadt Hamburg organized a party while they were still anchored at
Chittagong, Bangladesh. Ganal joined the said party after finishing his shift
at 12 MN. At around 3 AM, the ship captain that Ganal was already drunk so he
directed him to return to his cabin and take a rest. Ganal ignored the ship
captain’s order. Thus, the captain summoned 3 men to escort Ganal to his cabin.
The crew members attempted to accompany him back to his cabin but he refused.
They then tried to restrain him but he resisted and, when he found the chance
to escape, he ran towards the ship’s railings and, without hesitation, jumped
overboard and straight into the sea. Ganal was later found dead and floating in
the water.
Subsequently, Ganal’s wife, Gemma Boragay,
for herself and in behalf of their minor children, filed a claim for death
benefits with petitioners, but the latter denied the claim. Thus, on October
29, 2012, Boragay, filed with the NLRC a complaint for recovery of death and
other benefits, unpaid salaries for the remaining period of Ganal’s contract,
as well as moral and exemplary damages.
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. It held that respondents’ allegations are self-serving and hearsay; they
failed to present evidence to substantiate their allegations; on the other hand,
petitioners were able to present affidavits of Ganal’s fellow crew members who
have direct and actual knowledge of what occurred on board the MV Stadt Hamburg
and who attested to the fact that Ganal willfully jumped overboard.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s Decision. It
ruled that petitioners have duly proven that Ganal’s death is not compensable
as it was the result of the deliberate and willful act of Ganal and, thus, is
directly attributable to him.
The CA, however, reversed the LA and the
NLRC’s Decision. It held that Ganal jumped into the sea while he was overcome
by alcohol and completely intoxicated and deprived of his consciousness and
mental faculties to comprehend the consequence of his own actions and keep in
mind his own personal safety.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ganal’s death is willful and
is therefore not compensable
RULING:
In the present case, it may be conceded
that the death of Ganal took place in the course of his employment, in that it
happened at the time and at the place where he was working. However, the
accident which produced this tragic result did not arise out of such
employment. The occasion where Ganal took alcoholic beverages was a grill party
organized by the ship officers of MV Stadt Hamburg. It was a social event and
Ganal attended not because he was performing his duty as a seaman, but was
doing an act for his own personal benefit. Even if the Court were to adopt a
liberal view and consider the grill party as incidental to Ganal’s work as a
seaman, his death during such occasion may not be considered as having arisen
out of his employment as it was the direct consequence of his decision to jump
into the water without coercion nor compulsion from any of the ship officers or
crew members. The hazardous nature of this act was not due specially to the
nature of his employment. It was a risk to which any person on board the MV
Stadt Hamburg, such as a passenger thereof or an ordinary visitor, would have
been exposed had he, likewise, jumped into the sea, as Ganal had.
The term “willful” means “voluntary and
intentional,” but not necessarily malicious. In the instant case, Ganal’s act
of intentionally jumping overboard, while in a state of intoxication, could be
considered as a deliberate and willful act on his own life which is directly attributable
to him.
Moreover, contrary to respondents’
contention, petitioners took the necessary precautions when: (1) the ship
captain advised Ganal to proceed to his cabin and take a rest; (2) Ganal was
assisted by no less than three crew members who tried to persuade him to return
to his cabin; (3) when he refused, the crew members tried to restrain him but
he escaped and immediately ran away from them and, without warning, jumped into
the sea.
The law does not intend for an employer to
be the insurer of all accidental injuries befalling an employee in the course
of the latter’s employment, but only for those which arise from or grow out of
the risks necessarily associated with the workman’s nature of work or
incidental to his employment. Ganal’s act of jumping overboard was not, in any
way, connected with the performance of his duties as ship oiler. Neither could
petitioners have reasonably anticipated such act on the part of Ganal. Thus,
having proven their defense, the burden now rests on the shoulders of
respondents to overcome petitioners’ defense.
Respondents failed to present evidence to
overcome the defense of petitioner and show that, prior to and at the time that
he jumped overboard, Ganal was deprived of the use of his reason or that his
will has been so impaired, by reason of his intoxication, as to characterize
his actions as unintentional or involuntary. Ganal may have become unruly by
reason of his inebriation but such recalcitrant behaviour does not necessarily
prove that his subsequent act of jumping overboard was not willful on his part.
The fact alone that he refused to be escorted to his cabin, that he resisted
efforts by other crew members to restrain him and that he jumped overboard
without hesitation or warning does not prove that he was not in full possession
of his faculties as to characterize his acts as involuntary or unintentional.
If it could be shown that a person drank
intoxicating liquor, it is incumbent upon the person invoking drunkenness as a
defense to show that said person was extremely drunk. It must be shown that the
intoxication was the proximate cause of death or injury and the burden lies on
him who raises drunkenness as a defense.
Indeed, Ganal may have had no intention to
end his own life. For all we know he was just being playful. Nonetheless, he
acted with notorious negligence. Notorious negligence has been defined as
something more than mere or simple negligence or contributory negligence; it
signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal
safety. In any case, regardless of Ganal’s motives, petitioners were able to
prove that his act of jumping wilful on his part.
Comments
Post a Comment