MARLOW NAVIGATION v. HEIRS OF RICARDO S. GANAL

Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. and/or Ms. Eileen Morales Vs. Heirs of Ricardo S. Ganal, et al.

G.R. No. 220168 

June 7, 2017 

FACTS: 

On September 16, 2011, herein petitioners employed Ricardo Ganal (Ganal) as an oiler aboard the vessel MV Stadt Hamburg in accordance with the provisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-Standard Employment Contract, which was executed by and between the parties. On September 20, 2011, he commenced his employment. 

Around 7 o'clock in the evening of April 15, 2012, a party was organized for the crewmen of MV Stadt Hamburg while the ship was anchored at Chittagong, Bangladesh. After finishing his shift at 12 midnight, Ganal joined the party. Around 3 o'clock in the morning of April 16, 2012, the ship captain noticed that Ganal was already drunk so he directed him to return to his cabin and take a rest. Ganal ignored the ship captain's order. Thus, a ship officer, a security watchman and a member of the crew were summoned to escort Ganal to his cabin. The crew members attempted to accompany him back to his cabin but he refused. They then tried to restrain him but he resisted and, when he found the chance to escape, he ran towards the ship's railings and, without hesitation, jumped overboard and straight into the sea. The crew members immediately threw life rings into the water towards the direction where he jumped and the ship officer sounded a general alarm and several alarms thereafter. Contact was also made with the coast guard and the crew members searched for Ganal, to no avail. Ganal was later found dead and floating in the water. 

The subsequent medico-legal report issued by the Philippine National Police showed that the cause of his death was asphyxia by drowning. Subsequently, Ganal's wife, Gemma Boragay (Boragay), for herself and in behalf of their minor children, filed a claim for death benefits with petitioners, but the latter denied the claim. 

Thus, on October 29, 2012, Boragay, filed with the NLRC a complaint for recovery of death and other benefits, unpaid salaries for the remaining period of Ganal's contract, as well as moral and exemplary damages. 

On July 26, 2013, the LA rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Aggrieved by the Decision of the LA, respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC. On October 21, 2013, the NLRC issued a Resolution denying respondents' appeal and affirming the Decision of the LA. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it in its November 21, 2013 Resolution. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. 

On February 25, 2015, the CA rendered its assailed Decision which reversed the October 21, 2013 and November 21, 2013 Resolutions of the NLRC. The CA held that Ganal jumped into the sea while he was overcome by alcohol and completely intoxicated and deprived of his consciousness and mental faculties to comprehend the consequence of his own actions and keep in mind his own personal safety. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated August 18.

ISSUES: 

• Whether or not respondents are entitled of death benefits as heirs of Ricardo S. Ganal under Section 20(B) of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, as amended in 2010. 
• Whether or not the CA erred in denying the decisions of both LA and NLRC. 

HELD: 

Petitioners' basic contention is that respondents are not entitled to death and other benefits, as well as damages, they are claiming by reason of the demise of their predecessor-in-interest during the effectivity of his contract of employment, because his death is directly attributable to him and was a result of his willful act. 

The Court finds the petition meritorious. 

It is settled that the employment of seafarers, including claims for death benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. As long as the stipulations in said contracts are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties. Nonetheless, while the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-Standard Employment Contract be integrated with every seafarer's contract. Under the provisions of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, as amended, the death of a seafarer by reason of any work-related injury or illness during the term of his employment is compensable. On the other hand, Section 20(D) of the same Standard Terms and Conditions states that: D. No 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 seafarer. 

Also, under Article 172 of the Labor Code, which may also be made applicable to the present case, the compensation for workers covered by the Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund are subject to the limitations on liability, to wit: Art. 172. Limitations of liability. -The State Insurance Fund shall be liable for the compensation to the employee or his dependents except when the disability or death was occasioned by the employee's intoxication, willful intent to injure or kill himself or another, notorious negligence, or otherwise provided under this Title. In the present case, it may be conceded that the death of Ganal took place in the course of his employment, in that it happened at the time and at the place where he was working. However, the accident which produced this tragic result did not arise out of such employment. The occasion where Ganal took alcoholic beverages was a grill party organized by the ship officers of MV Stadt Hamburg. It was a social event and Ganal attended not because he was performing his duty as a seaman, but was doing an act for his own personal benefit. 

The Court agrees with the LA and the NLRC that the pieces of evidence presented by petitioners, consisting of the testimony of the crew members present at the time of the unfortunate incident, as well as the accident report made by the master of the vessel, prove the willfulness of Ganal's acts which led to his death. The term "willful" means "voluntary and intentional", but not necessarily malicious. In the case of MabuhayShipping Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the seaman, in a state of intoxication, ran amuck and committed an unlawful aggression against another, inflicting injury on the latter, so that in his own defense the latter fought back and in the process killed the seaman. 

This Court held that the circumstances of the death of the seaman could be categorized as a deliberate and willful act on his own life directly attributable to him. In the same manner, in the instant case, Ganal's act of intentionally jumping overboard, while in a state of intoxication, could be considered as a deliberate and willful act on his own life which is directly attributable to him. Indeed, Ganal may have had no intention to end his own life. For all we know he was just being playful. Nonetheless, he acted with notorious negligence. Notorious negligence has been defined as something more than mere or simple negligence or contributory negligence; it signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal safety. 

In any case, regardless of Ganal's motives, petitioners were able to prove that his act of jumping was willful on his part. Thus, petitioners should not be held responsible for the logical consequence of Ganal's act of jumping overboard. As a final note, it is true that the beneficent provisions of the Standard Employment Contract are liberally construed in favor of Filipino seafarers and their dependents. The Court commiserates with respondents for the unfortunate fate that befell their loved one; however, the Court finds that the factual circumstances in this case do not justify the grant of death benefits as prayed for by them as beneficiaries. 

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated February 25, 2015 and August 18, 2015, respectively, are SET ASIDE. The October 21, 2013 and November 21, 2013 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 08-000774-13 (NLRC NCR OFW [M]-00-10-16061-12) are REINSTATED.