G.R. No. 210660 - FLOR G. DAYO, VS. STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR NAFTO TRADE SHIPPING COMMERCIAL S.A..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents jointly and severally liable: 1) To pay complainant the amount of US$50,000.00, or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment, representing the death benefits of the late Eduardo P. Dayo; 2) To pay complainants the amount of US$1,000.00, or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate at the time of actual payment, representing the burial expenses; 3) To pay complainant the amount equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total judgment award, as and for attorneys fees; Other monetary claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [18] Status Maritime Corporation appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. [19] In the Decision dated September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission First Division reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision and held that: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal of respondents is GRANTED. Thus, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one entered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [20] Flor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the National Labor Relations Commission in the Resolution dated December 30, 2010. [21] She then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that her husband died from a work-related illness, thus, it was grave abuse of discretion for the National Labor Relations Commission to reverse the Labor Arbiters ruling. [22] The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that since Eduardo died after the term of his contract with Status Maritime Corporation, his beneficiaries are not entitled to the death benefits[.] [23] The Court of Appeals cited GSIS v. Valenciano [24] where this court held that diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease[.] [25] The Court of Appeals also cited Section 32-A of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Amended Standard Terms and Conditions that does not list diabetes mellitus as an occupational disease. [26] Eduardo died after the term of his contract with Status Maritime Corporation. It was clear then that his beneficiaries were not entitled to death benefits. [27] In addition, the Court of Appeals held that Flor failed to substantiate her allegation that Eduardos illness and cause of death were work-related. [28] A portion of the Court of Appeals Decision states: Time and again, we have ruled that self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence. Often described as more than a mere scintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise. Thus, in the absence of substantial evidence, w