FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204326. August 15, 2018.]
EDITH B. GONZAGA, petitioner,vs. SEA BREEZE CREWING MANILA, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 204326 (Edith B. Gonzaga v. Sea Breeze Crewing Manila, Inc.). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Edith B. Gonzaga seeking to nullify the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 26, 2011 2 and September 26, 2012, 3 respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 06215. The CA dismissed her petition for certiorari4 under Rule 65 against the February 28, 2011 Decision, 5 and the April 29, 2011 6 and May 25, 2011 7 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. OFW VAC-12-000035-2010. The NLRC affirmed the October 11, 2010 Decision 8 of the Labor Arbiter dismissing petitioner's complaint.
The dispute arose out of the claim 9 for death benefits filed by petitioner as surviving wife of Liberato S. Gonzaga (Liberato) against Sea Breeze Crewing Manila, Inc. (Sea Breeze), a manning agency licensed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On November 3, 2007, Liberato died while on board the vessel M/V Yang Bing during his eight-month contract with Sea Breeze. 10 Sea Breeze, however, denied any liability for death benefits under the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, also known as the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), for the reason that Liberato's death was a suicide. 11
Sea Breeze confirmed that on September 18, 2007, it employed Liberato as Second Marine Engineer to serve the vessel M/V Yang Bing for an eight-month contract. The incident report executed by the Master of the vessel and the crew statements established that on November 3, 2007, at around 8:10 a.m., the vessel's Chief Engineer and other officers on board noticed that Liberato did not attend to his work. This prompted the officers, especially Third Engineer Alberto Paragamac, to search for him. At about 8:30 a.m., the officers found Liberato's body hanging inside the engine spare parts room at the main deck starboard side. By 10:16 a.m., the police arrived, and then took the cadaver for autopsy at about 10:50 a.m. 12
In support of its claim, Sea Breeze presented the police report and the death certificate with the post mortem examination report conducted by Police Chief Inspector Tomas A. Dimaandal, Jr., MD, Police Medico Legal Office, Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office XI, Davao City. The police report stated that Liberato was found hanging lifeless tied with a nylon rope on his neck inside the spare parts room. The report concluded that the death was a suicide. While the motive could not be determined, no foul play was detected in connection with the seaman's death as there was no indication of resistance. The post mortem examination likewise indicated that the cause of death was suicide due to asphyxia by ligature. 13 aScITE
After proceedings, the Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. Since Sea Breeze was able to prove that the cause of death was suicide, no death benefits can be claimed by his heirs. 14 The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision. It nevertheless awarded petitioner moral and exemplary damages 15 on the ground that Sea Breeze did not immediately notify petitioner and her family of Liberato's death. 16 Both parties filed their separate motions for reconsideration. The NLRC denied petitioner's motion in its April 29, 2011 Resolution. 17 In its May 25, 2011 Resolution, it granted Sea Breeze's motion, deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages. 18
The CA, in its September 26, 2011 Resolution, 19 dismissed petitioner's special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 for failure to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period, having been paid only on September 6, 2011, or 22 days beyond the 60th day to file the petition. The CA also noted other technical infirmities in the petition such as: (1) petitioner's counsel did not indicate her current official receipt number and date of payment of Integrated Bar of the Philippines membership dues; (2) the verification and certification of non-forum shopping did not contain competent evidence of identities of her co-petitioners therein, Evangeline and Bernardino Adiong, in violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice; (3) the copy of the May 25, 2011 Resolution was not a duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment as required by the Rules of Court; and (4) there was no proper proof of service of the petition to the public respondent and the adverse party. 20 The CA also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its September 26, 2012 Resolution. 21
In this petition, petitioner claims that her petition filed before the CA did not suffer from any technical defects. 22 She likewise reiterates that it was impossible for her husband to have committed suicide. Several days prior to his death, there was no showing that Liberato would take his own life. In fact, on September 21, 2007, he contacted petitioner where she observed he was in high spirits. When he reached Italy, he again called petitioner and his children in the same jubilant spirits. Knowing that he was "a man of deep faith and an active church leader," a self-made man, and a loving husband and father, she was shocked to learn of his death on November 3, 2007 when she called Sea Breeze's office. 23
In its comment, 24 Sea Breeze points out that: (1) petitioner did not indicate the material dates needed to perfect the filing of the petition; (2) the petition raises factual issues not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari; and (3) the fact of suicide had already been established by clear and convincing evidence.
The issue here is whether the CA correctly dismissed petitioner's special civil action for certiorari based on procedural grounds.
We deny the petition.
I.
Section 3, 25 Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides that in original actions filed before the CA, such as a petition for certiorari, payment of the corresponding docket fees is required, and failure to comply with the requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of such action. 26 Nevertheless, while the court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees, failure to pay the required docket fees per se should not automatically lead to the dismissal of a case. For as long as (a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period, and (b) there was no intention on the part of the claimant to defraud the government, the decision to dismiss the petition remains discretionary. 27 In turn, this discretion should be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances. 28
In this case, while petitioner indeed failed to pay the docket fees during the 60-day reglementary period in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, payment was received within the reasonable time, or just 22 days beyond the last day of filing. We also find, given the short period, that there is no intent to defraud the government. Thus, the petition should not have been dismissed solely on this ground.
It bears stressing, however, that the petition was dismissed on account of not only this ground but also on other technical infirmities. 29 In particular, the CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal for still failing to attach a duplicate original or certified true copy of the NLRC's May 25, 2011 Resolution. 30 While she claims to have complied with the technical requirements, petitioner still did not submit proof to this Court that she had attached the certified true copies. HEITAD
II.
To dispel any qualms of the parties and to finally put the issue to rest, we resolve to proceed in determining whether the merits of the case warrant us to relax technical rules in order to achieve substantial justice.
The death of a seaman during the term of his employment makes the employer liable to the former's heirs for death compensation benefits. 31 This rule, however, is not absolute. The POEA-SEC unequivocally states that "[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seaman." 32 The death of a seaman resulting from a deliberate or willful act on his own life is not compensable, and the burden of proof rests on his employer. The employer may exempt himself from liability if he can successfully prove this fact. 33 Hence, petitioner's entitlement to any death benefits depends on whether Sea Breeze's evidence sufficiently proved that Liberato committed suicide.
This issue, however, is one of fact that, as a general rule, is not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. In the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. 34 This applies with greater force where we review labor cases brought up before the CA in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In such cases, the only issue to resolve is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, not the correctness of the decision itself. 35
As a rule, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. 36 They are generally binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. 37 In labor cases brought up before the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence or are in total disregard of evidence material to, or even decisive of, the controversy; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. 38
Here, we uphold the findings of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter for being supported by substantial evidence: the police report, the post-mortem examination results conducted by the police crime laboratory contained in the death certificate, the incident report executed by the Master of the vessel, and the crew statements. 39 All sufficiently support the conclusion that Liberato's death was self-inflicted. In this regard, we quote with approval the findings of the Labor Arbiter:
The crux of this case lies in the resolution on the affirmative defense of the respondents that the late husband of the complainant died of suicide. This Office would like to take judicial notice that in deaths caused by suicide, the deceased acts in secrecy and silence. The determination whether a suicide was committed or otherwise is left in the hands of the Police Investigators who are presumed to act with regularity and knowledgeable on this matter. Unless, there is an overwhelming evidence that runs contrary to the findings of the police on the existence of a suicide, this Office will have to take the findings of the police with a grain of salt.
The complainant argues that it was impossible for her late husband to commit suicide in view of the fact that he was a deeply religious man with a strong faith in God, a loving father and husband, a self[-]made man without any resentment towards the world. Sadly, these traits are not assurances that a man will not take his own life. The human mind is a mysterious thing and human beings are frail creatures and may succumb to the pressures of the world anytime. Just as there are no assurances that a man will not commit homicide against his fellow man, there are also no assurances that a man will not commit suicide.
At the very outset, this Office is mandated by rule on substantial evidence. Well-entrenched is the rule that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in quasi-judicial bodies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise.
As to the fact of suicide, this Office is convinced that the respondents were able to establish by substantial evidence that the late 2nd Engr. Gonzaga died of suicide. The police report and death certificate with post mortem examination made by the police crime laboratory was able to establish this fact. 40 (Citation omitted.) ATICcS
From the foregoing, we find no compelling reasons to reverse the CA Decision in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Its conclusions having been supported by substantial evidence, the NLRC, in affirming the Labor Arbiter, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that Liberato's death was suicide. Since Sea Breeze was able to prove suicide, Liberato's death is not compensable, and his heirs are not entitled to any compensation or benefits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated September 26, 2011 and September 26, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 06215 are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED."Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 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. 10-37.
2.Id. at 150-152; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles.
3.Id. at 40-41; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino.
4.Id. at 69-92.
5.Id. at 51-61.
6.Id. at 63-64.
7.Id. at 66-68.
8.Id. at 43-49.
9.Id. at 42.
10.Id. at 46 & 56.
11.Id. at 56-57.
12.Id. at 56.
13.Id. at 46.
14.Id. at 48. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the COMPLAINT is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The respondents established that the death of the complainant's husband was self-inflicted.
SO ORDERED.
15. In the amount of P50,000.00 and P10,000.00, respectively. Id. at 60.
16.Id.
17.Supra note 6.
18.Supra note 7.
19.Supra note 2.
20.Rollo, pp. 151-152.
21.Supra note 3.
22.Rollo, p. 22.
23.Id. at 14-15, 25-26.
24.Id. at 133-138.
25. Sec. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. — The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
26. Camaso v. TSM Shipping (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 223290, November 7, 2016, 807 SCRA 204, 208-209.
27. Id. at 209-210.
28. La Salette College v. Pilotin, G.R. No. 149227, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 380, 387.
29. Rollo, pp. 151-152.
30. Id. at 41.
31. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Pedrajas, G.R. No. 192993, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 541, 547; Sec. 20 (B) (1) of the POEA-SEC states:
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH
1. In case of work-related death of the 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.
32. Sec. 20 (D), POEA-SEC.
33. See Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Pedrajas, supra at 547-548.
34. Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang, G.R. No. 151993, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 526, 532.
35. Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 334, 342-343.
36. Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang, supra at 533.
37. Id.
38. E. Ganzon, Inc. (EGI) v. Ando, Jr., G.R. No. 214183, February 20, 2017, 818 SCRA 165, 174.
39. Rollo, pp. 58-59.
40. Id. at 47-48.