FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236889. April 4, 2018.]
DEMA BERNASOL, FOR HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF HER THREE MINOR CHILDREN, HEIRS OF THE LATE EDWIN P. BERNASOL, petitioners,vs. CREW AND SHIP MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND/OR ELOISA P. SANGALANG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: HSCATc
"G.R. No. 236889 — Dema Bernasol, for her behalf and in behalf of her three minor children, heirs of the late Edwin P. Bernasol vs. Crew and Ship Management International, Inc., and/or Eloisa P. Sangalang
After a judicious review of petitioner's allegation and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Decision 1 and Resolution dated May 19, 2017 and January 12, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 135457.
Petitioner insists that under Section 20 (B) (1) 2 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers (POEA-SEC), she is entitled to claim death benefits.
Under the law, 3 in order for petitioner to successfully claim death benefits, she must prove that her husband's death was work-related.
A perusal of the present petition reveals that petitioner pleads that "a re-examination of all x x x documentary and circumstantial evidence be made, which if done, will clearly disclose that the seafarer's illness is compensable." 4 But, this Court is generally not a trier of facts. It need not examine or assess the evidence anew absent any compelling reason.
Furthermore, the Court treats the conclusions of the lower tribunals as though final especially when well substantiated and justified. Here, as correctly found by the Labor Arbiter (LA), the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the CA, petitioner failed to establish the fact that her husband's cause of death was reasonably connected to or arose out of the latter's employment as a seafarer. She was unable to describe the duties and tasks performed by her husband and explain how his work environment caused or at least contributed to his death. Thus, the Court finds no basis to overturn the common ruling of the tribunals below.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution dated May 19, 2017 and January 12, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 135457. IDTSEH
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Rodil V. Zalameda.
2. In case of the work-related death of a 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.
3. Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC — Occupational Disease
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:
(1) the seafarer's work must have involved the risks described therein; (2) the disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; (3) the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such factors necessary to contract it; and (4) there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
4. See Petition for Review; id. at p. 16.