G.R. No. 169575 - IMELDA PANTOLLANO (FOR HERSELF AS SURVIVING SPOUSE AND IN BEHALF OF HER 4 CHILDREN HONEYVETTE, TIERRA BRYN, KIENNE DIONNES, SHERRA VEDA MAE, THEN ALL MINORS, WITH DECEASED SEAMAN VEDASTO PANTOLLANO), VS. KORPHIL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND MANNING CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is entered finding respondents liable for the claimed death benefits to complainant-in-representation thus ORDERING respondent's] principal and local manning agent, along with the latter's corporate officers and directors, jointly and severally: 1. [T]o Pay to the deceased complainant's legal heirs/beneficiaries Imelda Pantollano and their four minor children, viz., Honeyvette L. Pantollano born 10/30/81, Tierra Bryn L. Pantollano born 04/17/84. Kienne Dionnes L, Pantollano born 08/29/89, and Sherra Veda Mae L. Pantollano born 11/21/90, death benefits under the POEA Rules and Regulations of US$50,000.00 and US$ 28,000.00 (US$7,000.00 each) for the said 4 minor children; 2. [T]o give and/or pay to them the proceeds of seafarer V. Pantollano['s] coverage for Comprehensive Life, Health, Medical and Disability Insurance with various P and I Clubs for the Owner's Protection and Indemnity against any such claim against all hazards and risks in operating the vessel pursuant to maritime commerce; 3. [To] pay attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary amount awarded. Other claims of complainant-in-representation are denied for lack of merit. SO ORDERED [9] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission Korphil sought recourse to the NLRC by submitting its Notice of Appeal [10] With Memorandum of Appeal on March 6, 2002. On June 7, 2002, Korphil filed a Supplemental Appeal [11] to their Memorandum of Appeal. On July 31, 2002, the NLRC issued a Resolution [13] reversing and setting aside the January 31, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. According to the NLRC, the death of Vedasto which was clearly shown by evidence to be a case of suicide was not compensable under the clear provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Imelda filed a Motion for Reconsideration [13] which was opposed by Korphil. [14] In a Resolution [15] dated May 30, 2003, the NLRC reversed its July 31, 2002 Resolution and reinstated the January 31, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Korphil filed a Motion for Reconsideration [16] which was denied by the NLRC through its Resolution [17] dated July 31,2003. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Aggrieved, Korphil filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari . [18] On October 10, 2003, Imelda filed her Comment. [19] Korphil did not file its reply and so the CA in a Resolution [20] dated December 4, 2003 deemed that it had waived the right to file its reply. The CA directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda and then the case was declared submitted for decision. On June 30, 2005, the CA issued its assailed Decision which granted the petition, reversed and set aside the May 30, 2003 Resolution of the NLRC, and dismissed the case for lack of merit. It held that under Article 291 of the Labor Code, Imelda should have filed her complaint within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. Thus, Imelda should have filed her complaint within three years from Vedasto's disappeara