Facts
Decision
Appeal
Supreme Court decision
A seafarer's cabin was forced open by the crew, who found him dead inside his locker room. The body was turned over to the Saudi Arabian police and an autopsy was conducted. The doctor who conducted the autopsy ruled that the seafarer committed suicide by hanging himself. Thereafter, the seafarer's remains were repatriated.
An autopsy was then requested by the seafarer's family, which was conducted by a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. The autopsy's results stated that the seafarer died of asphyxia by strangulation, which meant that somebody else had caused his death. The seafarer's brother filed a complaint for death compensation benefits before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which was eventually transferred to the labour arbiter of the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC).
The labour arbiter awarded death benefits of $50,000 to the seafarer's heirs. The decision was based on the fact that the company had failed to overcome the burden of proof that the seaman's death was not compensable. The award was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal and, eventually, by the Court of Appeals.
The company appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. It argued that based on the autopsy conducted by the Saudi Arabian authorities, the seaman had committed suicide by hanging himself, and thus his death was not compensable. The company also presented the crew's statement which confirmed that they had forced open the seaman's locked cabin door and found him dead inside the locker room.
The Supreme Court upheld the award of death benefits(1) for the following reasons. First, the original autopsy report prepared in Saudi Arabia was never presented. Rather, the English translation of the report was presented – not only was this a photocopy, but it was also unsigned. In addition, the identity of the translator was not disclosed, and neither was it established whether he or she was an officially recognised translator for both English and the language in which the medical report was originally written. Thus, there was no proof that the report was an accurate translation of the original medical report. Furthermore, the alleged translated medical report had not been signed by the Saudi Arabian doctor, which created doubt as to its authenticity. The court held that the unsigned translation of the medical report was nothing but a self-serving document which ought to be treated as devoid of any evidentiary value, even in administrative proceedings.
Second, out of the independent report of the National Bureau of Investigation and the photocopy of the alleged medical report of a Saudi Arabian doctor, the former should prevail and be given full credence.
Lastly, the crew's statement failed to show satisfactorily the circumstances surrounding the seaman's death or prove that he had committed suicide.
The Supreme Court found that the records were devoid of any substantial evidence and the company had failed to discharge its burden of proof to show that the seaman committed suicide so as to evade its liability for death benefits under the 1989 POEA Contract.(2)
For further information on this topic please contact Ruben T Del Rosario at Del Rosario & Del Rosario law Offices by telephone (+63 2 810 1791), fax (+63 2 817 1740) or email ([email protected]).
Endnotes
(1) Maritime Factors, Inc v Bienvenido Hindang; GR 151993; Third Division; October 19 2011, Supreme Court Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, Ponente.
(2) Under this contract, work-related death is not required for the award of benefits. In addition (as is the case with the 1995 POEA Contract), when death occurs during the term of employment it is compensable, with the exception of death as a result of suicide.