SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226284. August 30, 2017.]
HEIRS OF ISPERO BUTIL, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE WIFE, MA. CAROLINA A. BUTIL, petitioner,vs. SEALANDIA SHIPMANAGEMENT PTE. AND SEALANDIA CREW MANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 August 2017which reads as follows: acEHCD
"G.R. No. 226284 (Heirs of Ispero Butil, herein represented by the wife, Ma. Carolina A. Butil v. Sealandia Shipmanagement Pte. and Sealandia Crew Management Philippines, Inc.) — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated March 17, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated August 9, 2016 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140866.
On April 16, 2013, Ispero Butil (Ispero) signed a nine-month employment contract with Sealandia Shipmanagement Pte., a foreign shipowner, and its local manning agency Sealandia Crew Management Philippines, Inc. (collectively, the respondents). Ispero was hired as an Able Bodied Seaman and was assigned to board the vessel M/V Gaz Evoluzione. 4 Ispero's job entailed strenuous manual works, such as carrying heavy loads of provisions, material or equipment on board the vessel. He was also assigned to different work hours. 5
On July 25, 2013, while on board the vessel M/V Gaz Evoluzione, Ispero complained that he cannot sleep. The following day, Ispero was brought to a physician in Mongstad, Norway, who diagnosed him with "depression." The physician gave Ispero medications and was advised to go back to the Philippines for further treatment. 6
Heeding the physician's recommendation, Ispero departed from London on August 5, 2013 and arrived in Manila on August 6, 2013. 7 On August 7, 2013, sometime in the morning, Ispero's lifeless body was found hanging from the ceiling of their home. 8 The heirs of Ispero (petitioners) sought compensation for the death of Ispero from the respondents, but the latter denied any liability. 9 The petitioners then brought the matter to the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (OPVA) of the Department of Labor and Employment for voluntary arbitration. They insist that they are entitled to the death benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) since Ispero's depression was work-related. 10
On the other hand, the respondents maintained that the petitioners are not entitled to death benefits since Ispero's death is solely attributable to his deliberate act of killing himself by committing suicide. They also pointed out that Ispero's death occurred outside the term of his employment; and that his suicide was deliberate and caused by circumstances outside of his employment conditions. 11
After due proceedings, the voluntary arbitrators, on February 11, 2015, rendered a Decision, 12 the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to jointly and severally pay the complainants the death benefits of Ispero Butil in the amount of US$93,154 and US$18,631 as additional benefit for the minor child as provided by the CBA, US$1,000 burial allowance or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment, Php100,000 as exemplary damages and ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award as and by way of attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 13
In finding that the respondents are liable to pay the petitioners death benefits, the voluntary arbitrators opined that the cause of Ispero's suicide was his depression, which occurred during the term of his employment with the respondents, viz.:
This Panel made an independent research and according to www.webmd.com, "depression and fatigue may fuel each other. Having one may dramatically increase the risk of developing the other. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
It is also important to note that the respondents never picked up Ispero Butil from the airport upon his arrival for transport to their designated hospital.
Knowing that he was already ill at that time, the least that the respondents should have done was to advise Mrs. Carolina Butil, about the medical/mental condition of her late husband. These precautions could have prevented Ispero Butil from taking his own life. On this score the Merck Manual of Medical Information, Second Home Edition, page 566 provides. "Suicidal behaviors usually result from the interaction of several factors, the most common of which is depression. In fact, depression is involved in over 50% of attempted suicides.
xxx xxx xxx
In Anita N. Canuel x x x vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., et al., x x x the Court [clarified] that the phrase "work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his employment contract" should not be strictly and literally construed to mean that the seafarer's work related death should have precisely occurred during the term of his employment. Rather, it is enough that the seafarer's work-related injury or illness which eventually causes his death should have occurred during the term of his employment. x x x 14 SDHTEC
The respondents sought a reconsideration 15 of the Decision dated February 11, 2015, but it was denied by the voluntary arbitrators in their Resolution 16 dated May 18, 2015. Unperturbed, the respondents filed a petition for review 17 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the CA, maintaining that Ispero's death is not compensable since he committed suicide in his own home outside the term of his employment contract.
On March 17, 2016, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, 18 which reversed and set aside the findings of the voluntary arbitrators. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and subject to the above disquisitions, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 11, 2015 and Resolution dated May 18, 2015 issued by the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and Employment in AC-308-RCMB-NCR-MVA-102-01-10-2014 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint filed by Ma. Carolina Butil is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 19
The CA opined that the family of a seafarer who commits suicide are not entitled to death benefits; 20 and that the petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence showing that Ispero's mental disorder is indeed work-related. 21 The motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied by the CA in its Resolution 22 dated August 9, 2016.
Simply put, the issue presented to the Court for resolution is whether the respondents are liable to pay the petitioners death benefits notwithstanding that Ispero's death was caused by his wilful act of suicide.
The petition is dismissed.
The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) or the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels, is deemed incorporated in every seafarer's employment contract; it is considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable to the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels. 23 Section 20 (D) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the rule applicable in this case, provides that:
D. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties, provided, however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.
In Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang, 24 the Court categorically stated that:
In order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute. The employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. Clearly, respondent's entitlement to any death benefit depends on whether petitioner's evidence suffices to prove that Danilo committed suicide, and the burden of proof rests on petitioner.
In this case, it is not disputed that Ispero's death was due to his willful act, i.e., suicide by hanging. Clearly, pursuant to Section 20 (D) of the 2010 POEA-SEC and the Court's pronouncement in Maritime Factors, Inc., the petitioners are not entitled to compensation from the respondents.
The Court likewise cannot give credence to the petitioners' claim that Ispero's depression is work-related. Indeed, other than their bare allegations, the petitioners failed to present any other evidence to prove that Ispero's depression was caused or, at the very least, aggravated by the conditions of his work. It need not be overemphasized that in the absence of substantial evidence, working conditions cannot be accepted to have caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, in this case, brief psychotic disorder. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent. 25
Ispero's alleged handwritten notes, wherein he supposedly indicated his frustrations over his workhours aboard the vessel, as correctly pointed out by the CA, do not clearly state that his work actually caused his depression. Ispero was merely referring to the physical strains of working as a seaman, not depression due to the same. Moreover, while the physician in Mongstad, Norway indicated that Ispero was suffering from depression, the medical diagnosis did not indicate that Ispero was suffering from a severe psychotic disorder or that he has suicidal tendencies, nor did it state whether the depression was work-related or not. AScHCD
Further, it was error on the part of the voluntary arbitrators to have relied on the contents of the website webMD.com. The validity of the information found in webMD.com are, at best, questionable since the website makes no guaranty as regards the veracity of the entries found therein. In the disclaimer contained in webMD.com's Terms and Conditions of Use, it is indicated that "[t]he [content of the website] is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment" and that it makes no representations or warranties about "[t]he accuracy, reliability, completeness, currentness, or timeliness of the [content of the website]." 26
While the Court commiserates with the petitioners' plight, the Court is nevertheless constrained to deny their claim absent any evidence therefor. It cannot be gainsaid that it is not enough for them to simply allege that Ispero's depression was caused or aggravated by the nature of his work; it is still incumbent upon them to present substantial evidence for their claim.
Although the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it does not necessarily follow that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. 27 Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions; the claimant must prove a positive proposition. 28 For the foregoing reasons, the Court is unable to grant the petitioners' claim for death benefits and other monetary awards.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated March 17, 2016 and Resolution dated August 9, 2016 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140866 are AFFIRMED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring; id. at 24-33.
3.Id. at 35-36.
4.Id. at 25.
5.Id. at 12.
6.Id. at 81-83.
7.Id. at 84-85.
8.Id. at 12.
9.Id. at 41.
10.Id. at 37-49.
11.Id. at 90-101.
12.Id. at 150-155.
13.Id. at 154-155.
14.Id. at 152-154.
15.Id. at 156-166.
16.Id. at 174-176.
17.Id. at 177-205.
18.Id. at 24-33.
19.Id. at 33.
20.Id. at 28.
21.Id. at 29-31.
22.Id. at 35-36.
23.See Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag, 678 Phil. 938 (2011).
24. 675 Phil. 587, 588 (2011).
25.Panganiban v. Tara Trading Shipmanagement, Inc., 647 Phil. 675 (2010).
26. See <http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-conditions-of-use> (visited August 24, 2017).
27.Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Pingol, 644 Phil. 678 (2010).
28.See Orate v. Court of Appeals, 447 Phil. 654 (2003).