G.R. No. 190534 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., RONALD AUSTRIA, AND ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO., VS. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE GODOFREDO REPISO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE LUZVIMINDA REPISO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondents prayed for death benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00; burial allowance in the amount of US$1,000.00; allowances for their three children below the age of 21 in the total amount of US$21,000.00; [20] and moral and exemplary damages. Also, respondents prayed lor the award of attorney's fees, alleging that petitioners, in gross and evident bad faith, refused to satisfy their just and demandable claim, and forced them to litigate to protect their interests. Petitioners' Arguments Petitioners countered that Godofredo never complained of any illness to the master or any officer of M/T Umm Al Lulu while on board said vessel, and that Godofredo was able to perform his functions as a Messman throughout the duration of his employment. Petitioners only came to know about Godofredo's illness when after more than six months from his repatriation, petitioners received a letter from respondent Luzviminda's counsel demanding compensation and allowance benefits on account of Godofredo's death in the aggregate amount of US$106,000.00. Petitioners contended that Godofredo's death is not compensable as it did not occur during the term of his employment. A seafarer's term of employment commenced from his actual departure from the airport or seaport in the point of hire and ceased upon completion of his period of contractual service, signing-off, and arrival at the point of hire. Godofredo's 10-month contract was about to expire on March 20, 2003 when he was safely repatriated without any medical condition a few days earlier, on March 16, 2003, as he was already in a convenient port. Godofredo finished his employment contract upon signing off from M/T Umm Al Lulu and arriving in Manila, his point of hire, on March 16, 2003. Clearly, Godofredo's death on March 19, 2003 was not compensable because it happened beyond the term of his contract. In addition, petitioners maintained that Godofredo's death was not work-related. As a Messman, Godofredo's duties were limited to assisting the Chie f Cook in the preparation of food and could not have contributed to his demise or increased the risk of acquiring the illness which caused his death. Godofredo was not subjected to any unusual strain or required to perform any strenuous activity that could trigger a heart attack. Petitioners also argued that a hypertensive heart disease takes years to develop and most probably Godofredo was already suffering from said disease even before the start of his employment contract. However, Godofredo failed to disclose his ailment during his PEME, thus, barring respondents from receiving death benefits on the ground of concealment of a pre-existing illness. Godofredo likewise failed to submit himself to a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days from his disembarkation, another ground for the denial of respondents' claim for death benefits. Finally, petitioners maintained that there was no basis to award attorney's fees to respondents