Borreta v. Evic Human Resource Management
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel A. Borreta, Jr. was employed as a cook by Evic Human Resource Management, Inc. for its foreign principal, Athenian Ship Management, Inc. While on board the vessel M/V Sea Lord, Manuel was found lifeless in the vessel's hospital cabin. An investigation and subsequent post-mortem examinations by Sri Lankan authorities and the NBI concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia by ligature, consistent with hanging. The respondents, Evic and Athenian, denied liability for death benefits, asserting that Manuel committed suicide, which they claimed was an excluded cause under the employment contract and relevant laws. This denial prompted the filing of a claim for various benefits by Manuel's widow, Delia B. Borreta. Procedural History: Petitioner Delia B. Borreta filed a Notice to Arbitrate before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), seeking death benefits, insurance proceeds, unpaid salary, overtime pay, leave credits, burial expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Panel) ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding most of the claimed benefits. The respondents moved for reconsideration, which the Panel denied, deeming the motion filed out of time. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the Panel's decision, affirming only the death benefit and reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses, while deleting other awards. The petitioner sought reconsideration of the CA's decision, which was denied. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Delia B. Borreta seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in entertaining the respondents' appeal, which she contends was filed out of time and constituted forum shopping. She also argues that the CA wrongly reversed the Panel's factual findings regarding the cause of death and the entitlement to various benefits. Specifically, she contests the CA's conclusion that Manuel committed suicide, the deletion of insurance benefits under R.A. No. 10022, and the deletion of awards for overtime pay, leave pay, daily allowance, and owner's bonus. The petition raises issues concerning appellate jurisdiction, forum shopping, the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration, the finality of quasi-judicial body findings, and the merits of the claims for death benefits, insurance, and other monetary awards.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not dismissing the Petition for Review for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not dismissing the Petition for Review for willful and deliberate acts of forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not dismissing the Petition for Review on the ground that the respondents' motion for reconsideration of the Voluntary Arbitrator Panel's decision was not duly filed. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the factual findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator Panel regarding the cause of death. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the finding that seafarer Borreta, Jr. committed suicide. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the finding holding respondents liable to pay insurance benefits under R.A. 10022. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the finding holding respondents liable to pay death benefits and reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the ruling holding respondents liable for CBA-mandated overtime pay, leave pay, subsistence allowance, and owner's bonus. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the Voluntary Arbitrator Panel's award of uncollected salary, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification. It ruled that the respondents' appeal was timely filed. It found that while the respondents' subsequent pleadings before the Panel might be considered as second or third motions for reconsideration, they did not constitute forum shopping as they were considered mere scrap paper and the Panel had lost jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the CA that suicide was sufficiently established by substantial evidence, including crew statements and autopsy reports, and that the petitioner's claims of a close family relationship were unsubstantiated bare allegations. The Court held that the CBA provision for death benefits for 'any cause' prevails over the POEA-SEC, entitling the petitioner to death benefits and reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses, regardless of the cause of death. However, it affirmed the deletion of insurance benefits under R.A. No. 10022, as suicide is not accidental death. The Court also found that the respondents failed to sufficiently prove payment of overtime pay, leave pay, daily allowance, and owner's bonus for the entire duration of employment, modifying the CA's deletion of these awards and ordering payment for a specific period. The Court affirmed the deletion of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees due to the absence of bad faith.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of appeal and forum shopping: The Court clarified that the appeal period from a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision to the CA is 15 days under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, following the en banc ruling in Guagua National Colleges v. Court of Appeals. The respondents' motion for reconsideration was timely filed considering the suppletory application of Rule 22, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, where the last day falling on a Sunday allowed filing on the next working day. The Court found that the respondents' subsequent pleadings before the Panel (Manifestation with Opposition and Reiterative Motion) were prohibited pleadings (second/third motions for reconsideration) and thus considered mere scrap paper, not constituting forum shopping, especially since the Panel had lost jurisdiction after the CA took cognizance of the appeal. The Court emphasized that the primary consideration in forum shopping is the prevention of conflicting decisions, which was not the case here. On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court clarified that the appeal period from a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision to the CA is 15 days under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, following the en banc ruling in Guagua National Colleges v. Court of Appeals. The respondents' motion for reconsideration was timely filed considering the suppletory application of Rule 22, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, where the last day falling on a Sunday allowed filing on the next working day. On the finding of suicide and disregarding the factual findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator Panel: The Court agreed with the CA that suicide was sufficiently established by substantial evidence, contrary to the Panel's findings. While the NBI Autopsy Report stated the cause of death as 'consistent with asphyxia by ligature,' it found no evidence of foul play. This, coupled with the detailed statements of the crew members describing Manuel's isolated behavior, fear of being killed, and the circumstances of his discovery, along with the Sri Lankan Post-Mortem Report indicating asphyxia due to hanging, constituted substantial evidence. The Court found the petitioner's claims of a close family relationship unsubstantiated bare allegations, lacking corroborating evidence like text messages or emails. On the finding of suicide: The Court agreed with the CA that suicide was sufficiently established by substantial evidence, contrary to the Panel's findings. While the NBI Autopsy Report stated the cause of death as 'consistent with asphyxia by ligature,' it found no evidence of foul play. This, coupled with the detailed statements of the crew members describing Manuel's isolated behavior, fear of being killed, and the circumstances of his discovery, along with the Sri Lankan Post-Mortem Report indicating asphyxia due to hanging, constituted substantial evidence. The Court found the petitioner's claims of a close family relationship unsubstantiated bare allegations, lacking corroborating evidence like text messages or emails. On entitlement to insurance benefits under R.A. No. 10022: The Court affirmed the CA's deletion of the award for insurance benefits under R.A. No. 10022. Section 23 of R.A. No. 10022 mandates compulsory insurance coverage, with a minimum of US$15,000.00 for accidental death. Since the Court found that Manuel committed suicide, which is not an accidental death, the petitioner is not entitled to this benefit. The Court also noted that even if the respondents failed to procure the insurance, the amount is not a penalty but the minimum coverage amount payable only under specified causes. On entitlement to death benefits and reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the petitioner is entitled to death benefits and reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses based on Section 25.1 of the CBA. This section clearly states that the company shall pay death benefits for the death of a seafarer under its employ for 'any cause.' The Court emphasized that the CBA's provisions, which offer greater benefits, must prevail over the POEA-SEC, aligning with the State's policy of affording maximum aid and protection to labor. The phrase 'any cause' in the CBA was interpreted broadly and was not narrowed by subsequent clauses related to employment status. On entitlement to overtime pay, leave pay, daily allowance, and owner's bonus: The Court modified the CA's deletion of these awards. While the respondents presented evidence of payment for a specific period (October 1-8, 2013), they failed to sufficiently prove payment for the entire duration of Manuel's employment. The Court found that the respondents did not deny the existence of these benefits in the CBA and employment contract but merely claimed they were already paid. However, the proof of payment was limited. Therefore, the Court ruled that the respondents are liable for these benefits for three months and five days, considering Manuel's employment start date and the period for which payment was proven. On entitlement to uncollected salary, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the CA's deletion of the award for uncollected salary, as the respondents proved payment for the period in question. It also affirmed the deletion of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, stating that these require a concrete showing of bad faith or malice. The Court found that the respondents' refusal to pay benefits stemmed from a firm belief in their cause and the merits of their defense, not from bad faith. The alleged concealment of the CBA, suppression of reports, and other actions cited by the petitioner were not sufficiently substantiated to prove bad faith.
Main Doctrine
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provision for death benefits for 'any cause' prevails over the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) if it provides greater benefits to the seafarer. Suicide does not preclude entitlement to death benefits under such a CBA clause. However, life insurance benefits under R.A. No. 10022 are generally limited to accidental death.