Title
Awatin vs. Avantgarde Shipping Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 179226
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2015
Seafarer's death post-employment deemed non-compensable; no evidence linking adenocarcinoma to work under POEA contract. Claims dismissed.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179226)

Facts:

  1. Employment and Contract Details

    • Alberto B. Awatin was recruited and hired as Master for the vessel M/V Seabulk Treasure Island by Avantgarde Shipping Corporation on January 16, 2001.
    • His contract provided for a six-month term, a monthly basic salary of US$1,750.00, fixed overtime pay of US$700.00, and vacation leave pay of US$350.00.
    • Awatin joined the vessel on January 21, 2001, after being declared "fit to work" by the company-designated physician.
  2. Previous Employment

    • Awatin had been continuously employed by Avantgarde as Master for various cargo vessels since May 28, 1997.
  3. Repatriation and Medical Condition

    • Awatin was repatriated to the Philippines on July 29, 2001, after completing his contract.
    • Upon his return, he underwent medical check-ups and was diagnosed with "Massive Ascitis, Secondary to Adenocarcinoma, Moderate Pleural Effusion, Right Lung."
    • He was declared "unfit to work" during a pre-employment medical examination on September 10, 2001, due to "Minimal PTB right upper lung."
    • Awatin was hospitalized multiple times for his condition and eventually died on July 12, 2002, due to "multi-organ failure and adenocarcinoma."
  4. Claims Filed

    • On October 9, 2002, Awatin's wife, Ma. Susana A. Awatin, filed a complaint for death benefits, burial allowance, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, and other damages against Avantgarde and its affiliates.
  5. Respondents' Defense

    • Private respondents denied the claims, arguing that Awatin was no longer employed at the time of his death and that his illness was not work-related.

Issue:

  1. Whether Awatin's death is compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
  2. Whether his illness (adenocarcinoma) was work-related and occurred during the term of his employment.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of the claims.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that:

  1. Awatin's death occurred almost a year after the termination of his employment contract.
  2. There was no evidence that his illness was contracted during his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness.
  3. The POEA Standard Employment Contract requires that the death must occur during the term of employment and be work-related to be compensable.
  4. The Court cannot grant compensation based on mere surmises or without substantial evidence.

Ratio:

  1. Compensability Under POEA Contract

    • Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract requires that the death of a seafarer must occur during the term of employment and result from a work-related illness or injury to be compensable.
    • Awatin's death occurred after his contract had expired, and there was no proof that his illness was work-related or contracted during his employment.
  2. Burden of Proof

    • The burden lies on the claimant to prove that the illness or death is work-related.
    • Petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence linking Awatin's illness to his employment.
  3. Liberal Construction vs. Substantial Evidence

    • While the Court adheres to a liberal interpretation of labor laws in favor of seafarers, claims must still be supported by substantial evidence.
    • Absent such evidence, the Court cannot grant compensation.
  4. Finality of Factual Findings

    • Factual findings of administrative bodies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Court.
    • The NLRC and CA correctly found that Awatin's illness and death were not work-related.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the claims, ruling that Awatin's death was not compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract as it occurred after his employment term and was not proven to be work-related.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.