We cannot grant the award of death benefits as Padrones died after the completion of the employment contract. The CA held that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryĬlearly, Padrones is entitled to be compensated - not of death benefits as awarded by the Labor Arbiter - but of disability benefits caused by his illness.
The CA held that, while respondents are not entitled to death benefits, they should be paid disability benefits which has accrued in favor of Padrones prior to his death. In its assailed Decision promulgated on August 17, 2007, the CA ruled in respondents' favor. Respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the LA which granted death benefits in their favor. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 12 but the NLRC denied it in its Resolution 13 dated February 24, 2006. Padrones affixed, N/A or "not applicable."
In the said claim form, the deceased was asked of his claims, including claims for illness or injury. Padrones when he reported to respondent's office after sign off from the vessel. Appellants submitted in evidence a copy of the CLAIM FORM filled up by Mr. Respondents-appellants were able to belie appellee's allegation that complainant was repatriated due to medical reasons. Applying the POEA SEC, complainants are not entitled to death benefits. Clearly, the employment contract was no longer in force when the seafarer died. Padrones, the seafarer died on April 25, 2001. The employment contract expired on October 30, 1999, but was repatriated on NovemMr. X x x "as over emphasized by appellant the seafarer passed away one year and five months from the time he finished his employment contract. The NLRC held that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary On April 18, 2005, the NLRC promulgated its Decision 10 reversing the Decision of the LA and dismissing respondents' complaint for lack of merit. 8 Petitioners also argued that Padrones' death is not compensable because he did not die during the effectivity of his contract instead, he died one year and five months after his employment contract expired and that his death was due to an illness which was not related to nor contracted from his employment. The award is payable in Philippine peso at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment.Īggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal with the NLRC contending that, contrary to the claims of respondents that Padrones died of tuberculosis, he, in fact, died of lung cancer. to pay the complainants heirs of Peter Padrones, jointly and solidarity the sum of US$65,000.00 equivalent to death benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and attorney's fees to ten percent (10%) of the award as well as dismissing the prayer for damages for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered directing respondents Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. The dispositive portion of the LA's Decision reads: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary On October 30, 2003, the Labor Arbiter ( LA) handling the case rendered judgment in favor of herein respondents.
In their Position Paper, 6 respondents alleged that Padrones' death is compensable because the cause of such death was aggravated by tuberculosis, an illness which he acquired during the existence of his contract. 4 Thereafter, or on July 18, 2001, herein respondents, filed with the National Labor Relations Commission ( NLRC) a Complaint 5 against herein petitioners for recovery of death benefits, exemplary and moral damages, child allowance, burial expenses and attorney's fees arising from the death of Padrones. On April 25, 2001, Padrones died of cardio-respiratory arrest brought about by complications of lung cancer. 3 He finished his contract and was repatriated to the Philippines after completion thereof. Peter Padrones ( Padrones) was employed as a "motorman" by petitioners on board the vessel M/V "Spirit" from Decemto November 23, 1999.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals ( CA), dated Augand May 19, 2008, respectively, in CA-G.R.
0 kommentar(er)
