INTER-ORIENT MARITIME INC. vs CRISTINA CANDAVA, G.R. NO. 201251, JUNE 26, 2013

 "Claim for death benefit is compensable when caused by an illness that is contracted in the course of employment. There is no need to show that the illness is work-related. It is enough that it occurred during the term of their contract."

thebluediamondgallery.com

FACTS:

Joselito Candava was hired as a seafarer by Inter-Orient Maritime, Inc. for its foreign client, Tankoil Carrier Ltd. He was then deployed for a 9 months contract. Despite the expiration of his contract, he continued working at the vessel. One day, he experienced severe abdominal pain and then underwent 2 surgical procedures.He was then repatriated to the Philippines. Upon examination of the company physician, he was declared fit to work. However, his application to work again was rejected by the petitioner.

Joselito then filed a complaint on sickness wages and reimbursement of medical expenses before the NLRC. He signed a quitclaim upon payment to him the amount of P29,813.40 by the petitioner. A month later, he was diagnosed with tumor and lung carcinoma, which caused him to file another complaint for medical benefits. He then signed a quitclaim upon receipt of the amount of P77,000 from the petitioner.

Few months later, Joselito passed away with the antecedent cause of death was respiratory failure and pulmonary metastasis. His wife, respondent Cristina Candava then filed a death benefit claim from the petitioner. Petitioner, however, claimed that it already paid Joselito before and refused to give the death benefit. 

This prompted the respondent to file a claim for death benefit before the NLRC with the allegation that while Joselito was not coerced to sign the quitclaim, his condition forced him to sign the same because he needs the money for treatment. She further claimed that the illness of her husband was contracted during his employment with the petitioner, thus, he is entitled to death benefits, burial assistance, damages and attorney's fees.

Petitioner claims that her claim is barred by Res Judicata through the 2 complaints previously filed by Joselito which were already dismissed through his own motion and submitted the release document executed by him.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent stating that the release of Joselito of the petitioner does not bar the rights of his heirs to receive the death benefits. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner paid Joselito before is an acknowledgment that his death is compensable.

This ruling was reversed by the NLRC, however, holding that Joselito did not die during the term of his contract, and his illness was not proven to be work-related. It also ruled that the claim of the respondent is not barred by res judicata due to lack of identity in the cause of action between the claim of Joselito and Cristina. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC. Aggrieved she filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and pointed out that the petitioner failed to rebut the disputable presumption that Joselito's death was work-related. Petitioner thus filed a review before the SC.

ISSUE:

Is Joselito's death compensable?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement to prove that the death of a seafarer is work-related to be compensable. It is enough to prove that he contracted the illness during the term of his contract. Neither it is required to prove that the working condition increased the risk for him to contract the illness or disease. An injury or accident is deemed to arise in the course of employment when it takes place within the term of employment and at the place where the employee is reasonably may be to perform his duties. The records show that Joselito contracted his illness during the term of his employment and there is a clear causal connection between his illness and death, therefore making his death compensable. 

While his contract already expired, but the fact that he remained and continued to render services at the vessel is deemed to be a constructive renewal of his contract. The execution of his quitclaim releasing the petitioner from further liabilities is viewed by the court as a pre-designated scheme to evade payment of disability benefits. When Joselito went to submit the release document to the labor arbiter it was already signed and he was accompanied by the petitioner, adding more to the fact that such execution of the document negates voluntariness. 

It has been established that the illness was contracted by Joselito during the period of his employment with the petitioner, therefore making his death compensable.

California Clothing Inc. v. Shirley Quinones, GR No. 175822, October 23, 2013

Image credit: thenonconformer.wordpress.com

"Abuse of Rights and its elements" "Law on Human Relations"

Shirley Quinones went to shop at the Guess USA Boutique and purchased a pair of jeans. She paid the item and was issued a receipt by the store's cashier. As she walked away a store employee went after her demanding to pay the item. She told the employee she already paid it and showed her the receipt of her purchase. As the store employee insisted she forgot to pay, respondent requested they meet at her office in Cebu Pacific which is only located at the same building to talk about the concern. The respondent claimed to have been humiliated when the store employee continued to demand payment in front of Cebu Pacific's clients and even wrote a letter to her employer and HRD of Robinson's narrating the incident for the purpose of canceling her credit card.

Respondent claimed to have suffered from anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious apprehension, fright, moral shock and social humiliation.

LOOKING FOR CHEAP DELIVERY SERVICE? BOOK WITH TOKTOK HERE!

The petitioner explained there was miscommunication between the employees regarding the payment made of the respondent. They alleged that they were polite in asking the respondent for some clarifications on the payment made on her items. The RTC ruled the petitioner acted in good faith believing the respondent failed to pay. The act of demanding payment is a mere exercise of their right with honest belief that no payment was made. It also finds the demand to pay made in front of Cebu Pacific's clients not damaging because it was the respondent's fault to continue their discussion at her office. The letters sent to the respondent's employee is likewise not damaging because the petitioners were merely asking assistance and not intended to humiliate or embarrass her.

The CA reversed the RTC decision. It finds bad faith when the petitioner wrote the letter to the respondent's employer who is not privy to their transactions and subjected the respondent to ridicule and humiliation. Moreover, the official receipt presented by the respondent suffice as proof of payment which does not warrant further investigation against her. 

The petitioner now filed an appeal before the SC.

ISSUE

Is Quinones entitled to damages?

RULING

YES. 

The complaint against the petitioners stem from the principle of abuse of rights. 

As cited by the court in the case of Carpio v Valmonte, under the law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done negligently or willfully, is given a remedy or recourse to obtain relief from the damage or injury that the victim sustained. 

ORDER ORIGINAL COPPERMARK HERE

Our civil law is also imbued not only with the principles of equity, but also of moral precepts that are designed with certain norms that come from good conscience that guides human conduct. One of these fundamental moral precepts is the abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code that has the following elements: 

(1) there is a legal right or duty

(2) which is exercised in bad faith

(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

ARTICLE 19 of the Civil law requires that "a person must, in the exercise of a right or duty, act in good faith." Good faith is a state of mind which is manifested by the act of an individual. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

Any person who acted in bad faith thus will be liable for damages.

The court recognizes the right of the petitioners to make clarification from the respondent whether payment was made or not, however, the manner of such inquiry is not proper. The exercise of a right must be made in accordance to such purpose and must not be harsh.

The court also ruled that complementing Article 19 are the following:

SATISFY YOUR CRAVINGS. ORDER HERE!

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals or good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Thus, the respondent is entitled to damages.