FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205351. June 27, 2018.]
GRIMEDY A. CHAVEZ, IN BEHALF OF HER SON, ANTHONY A. CHAVEZ, petitioner,vs. DIAMOND-H MARINE SERVICES & SHIPPING AGENCY, INC./SEA POLAR TRADING CO., LTD., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 27, 2018which reads as follows: EcTCAD
"G.R. No. 205351 — Grimedy A. Chavez, in behalf of her son, Anthony A. Chavez vs. Diamond-H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc./Sea Polar Trading Co., Ltd.
The Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Grimedy A. Chavez (Grimedy), in behalf of her son, Anthony A. Chavez (Anthony), assailing the Resolutions dated August 22, 2012 2 and December 21, 2012 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06525. The appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Grimedy for being defective.
Factual Antecedents
On April 23, 2009, Anthony was employed as a fisherman for a period of one year by Diamond-H Marine Services and Shipping Agency, Inc. (Diamond), for and in behalf of its foreign principal, Sea Polar Trading, Co. Ltd. (Sea Polar) (collectively, the respondents), on board the vessel "F/B Fair Winner 707." 4 AIDSTE
On May 4, 2009, at about 6:12 p.m., while the maintenance workers were repairing the hydraulic piping systems of living spaces on the main deck of the vessel, a gas explosion on the aisle of the main deck occurred which resulted in the death of three of the vessel's crew members, including Anthony. 5
The remains of Anthony were transported to the Philippines at the expense of the respondents. 6
Consequently, Grimedy, mother of Anthony, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI in Iloilo City on February 18, 2010. Grimedy sought for the payment of Anthony's death benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Contract that the latter signed with respondents. 7
For its defense, respondents alleged that prior to the vessel's voyage, Diamond applied for insurance coverage with Paramount Life and General Insurance Corporation (Paramount) to cover the risks of accidental death and dismemberment of its sea workers. The insurance was for group personal accident insurance in the amount of US$50,000 for each and every seaman hired by respondents. 8
Thus, upon knowledge of Anthony's death, respondents made a demand to Paramount for the payment of insurance benefits in the amount of US$50,000. The demand, however, remained unheeded which prompted Diamond to institute a complaint against Paramount before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 6. 9
Meanwhile, respondents Sea Polar and Diamond immediately gave the heirs of Anthony the amounts of US$3,000 and P180,000, respectively. In several instances, Diamond also gave cash advances to Grimedy in the total amount of P315,800. 10
Despite the complaint filed by respondents against Paramount, however, the heirs of Anthony entered into an agreement with Paramount and received the amount of P550,000. Accordingly, the heirs of Anthony executed a Release of Claim, Loss and Subrogation. 11
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On December 23, 2010, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered its Decision 12 wherein it held that respondents should pay Grimedy her claim for death benefit and burial expenses, as well as attorney's fees in the total amount of US$67,100. AaCTcI
In declaring respondents liable to Grimedy, the LA held that Anthony or his beneficiary Grimedy was not privy to the insurance contract between respondents and the insurance company. 13
Aggrieved, respondents filed its Memorandum of Appeal before the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
On July 29, 2011, the NLRC issued its Decision 14 which reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the LA.
The NLRC found that the liability for death compensation was extinguished by the fact that Paramount had already settled the same in the amount of P550,000 with the beneficiaries of Anthony. This was corroborated by the Release of Claim, Loss and Subrogation Receipt executed by Grimedy through her attorney-in-fact, Cesar Chavez, as early as March 2010. To rule otherwise would inequitably render respondents obligatory to Grimedy twice, first, under the insurance coverage and second, under the contract of employment. 15
A Motion for Reconsideration 16 was filed but the same was denied in a Resolution 17 dated September 30, 2011.
Aggrieved, Grimedy filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, seeking to reverse and set aside the decision and resolution issued by the NLRC.
Ruling of the CA
On August 22, 2012, the CA rendered its Resolution 18 wherein it dismissed the petition of Grimedy for being defective.
The CA dismissed the petition based on the following grounds: (i) defective Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; (ii) the first page of the copy of the resolution assailed by Grimedy is a mere photocopy; and (iii) defective jurat in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. EcTCAD
A Motion for Reconsideration 19 was filed but the same was denied in a Resolution 20 dated December 21, 2012.
Hence, this Petition.
Ruling of the Court
Indeed, as a general rule, the requirements for filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are mandatory. Thus, non-compliance therewith is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. While the Court is mindful of exceptional cases where procedural defects were set aside to correct a patent injustice, "concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain his failure to comply with the rules." 21 Here, Grimedy failed to provide any persuasive explanation as to why the procedural rules were not properly complied with.
In any event, assuming that the petition complied with the procedural requirements laid down by the Rules, the same deserves scant consideration considering that Grimedy already received full compensation for Anthony's death benefits as shown in the Release of Claim, Loss and Subrogation.
In Goodrich Manufacturing Corp., et al. v. Ativo, et al., 22 the Court reiterated the standards that must be observed in determining whether a waiver and quitclaim has been validly executed:
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. 23 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours) HSAcaE
Invariably, the law frowns upon releases and quitclaims by employees who are pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers avoiding their legal responsibilities. Nonetheless, a valid waiver representing a voluntary settlement of an employee's claims should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties. 24 In the present case, records show that Grimedy's claim of fraud and bad faith is unsubstantiated. Thus, the Court finds the quitclaim in dispute to be a legitimate waiver.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions dated August 22, 2012 and December 21, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06525 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-28.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q. C. Sadang, concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles; id. at 31-32.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4.Id. at 48-49.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 49.
7.Id. at 11.
8.Id. at 49-50.
9.Id. at 50.
10.Id. at 106.
11.Id. at 107.
12. Issued by Executive Labor Arbiter Rene G. Eñano; id. at 44-46.
13.Id. at 45.
14. Penned by Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon, concurred in by Commissioner Julie C. Rendoque and Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Bantug; id. at 47-57.
15.Id. at 54-56.
16.Id. at 58-67.
17.Id. at 71-73.
18.Id. at 31-32.
19.Id. at 33-38.
20.Id. at 42-43.
21.Suico Industrial Corp., et al. v. Judge Lagura-Yap, et al., 694 Phil. 286, 303 (2012).
22. 625 Phil. 102 (2010).
23.Id. at 108, citing Periquet v. NLRC, 264 Phil. 1115, 1122 (1990).
24.Aujero v. Phil. Communications Satellite Corp., 679 Phil. 463, 479 (2012).