LAPID VS. NLRC

 LAPID VS. NLRC

 G.R. No. 117518 April 29, 1999

FACTS:

Respondent Phil Hans employed petioner’s son, Ariel to be a steward on board M/V Cast Muskox in Canada, Ariel left for the said country in September 1990 and was supposed to come home in August 1991 upon the termination of the 1-year period of employment contract. However, his lifeless body was found hanging by the neck from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse in Quebec, Canada on August 13, 1991. After examining the corpse, the coroner reported that the causes of death were asphyxiation by hanging and, therefore, the circumstances of death were following self-destruction. Based on the said report, Phil Hanse informed petitioner that Ariel committed suicide.

When the remains arrived in Manila, petitioner noticed immediately that it bore several bruises so petitioner sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and submitted the cadaver for post mortem examination.

The NBI reported that the body vore abrasions on the elbow, contusions on the forehead, hematoma and ligature marks on the neck, all of which are inconsistent with the suicide earlier reported. Petitioner then filed a claim with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) asserting that Ariel was a victim of foul play abroad in the course of his overseas employment. However, the POEA Administrator ruled that the pieces of evidence adduced substantially proved that suicide was committed just as what the coroner reported.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the assailed decision based on a conclusion that since Ariel’s $2,000.00 remained intact in his wallet when his body was found and that based on the coroner’s report, Ariel committed suicide and there was no foul play at all.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to death benefits under Sec. 6(6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen.

RULING:

YES. the Supreme Court reversed the NLRC’s decision and ordered the remand of the case to the POEA for computation of death benefits. Upon finding that the coroner’s report to be incomplete and the Phil Hanse’s evidence to be lean, frail and far from convincing, and that Phil Hanse failed to ascertain the circumstances of Ariel’s death.

It is the employer’s duty to ascertain the circumstances surrounding its employee’s death while the employee was on the course of his work.
Under Section 6 (6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, if the injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seaman was because of his own doing, no compensation shall be payable.

The employer must prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is attributable to the seaman, in order for the employer to evade any liability for death benefits.

 

 

 DIGESTED BY: Sharifa almeera Tuahan