This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, Jr.,[14] this Court declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable.[15] In the present case, Ildefonso died after he pre-terminated the contract of employment. That alone would have sufficed for his heirs not to be entitled for death compensation benefits. | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised, the only exception being when the factual findings of the appellate court are erroneous, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, or contrary to the findings culled by the court of origin.[23] Considering the conflicting findings of the LA and the NLRC and those of the CA, the Court is constrained to resolve the factual issues together with the legal ones. | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petitioners also refute in detail the applicability of the doctrines invoked by the respondents as the circumstances surrounding them do not obtain in the case at bar. In Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin,[21] employment was terminated upon the parties' mutual consent and the seafarer's claim was anchored on the POEA SEC and not on the provisions of a CBA. In Hermogenes v. Osco Shipping Services, Inc.,[22] no evidence was offered to prove the cause of the early termination of the seafarer's contract. In Spouses Aya-ay, Sr. v. Arpaphil Shipping Corporation,[23] the seafarer was repatriated due to an eye injury but he died of cardiovascular arrest after his contract was already terminated. In Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation v. Sta. Rita,[24] the seafarer was repatriated due to umbilical hernia and he died ten days after with cardiopulmonary arrest as the immediate cause, acute renal failure as the antecedent cause and hepatocellular carcinoma as the underlying cause. In Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Beneficiaries of the Late Second Officer Anthony S. Allas,[25] the seafarer was not medically repatriated. In the Estate of Posedio Ortega v. Court of Appeals,[26] the seafarer died of lung cancer and his heirs anchored their claim for death benefits on the POEA SEC, which unfortunately does not list the said illness as an occupational disease. The petitioners thus conclude that the contexts of the aforecited cases are different, hence, the doctrines enunciated therein find no application. | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, Jr.,[24] we declared that "in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract." "The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable."[25] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable. However, if the seaman dies after the termination of his contract of employment, his beneficiaries are not entitled to the death benefits enumerated above.[22] [Emphasis supplied.] | |||||
|
2009-09-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| To resolve these issues, it is imperative that we digress from the general rule that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law shall be entertained. Considering the disparate findings of fact of the CIAC and the CA which led them to different conclusions, we are constrained to revisit the factual circumstances surrounding this controversy.[21] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Stated differently, for death of a seafarer to be compensable, the death must occur during the term of his contract of employment.[25] It is the only condition for compensability of a seafarer's death.[26] Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable.[27] In Jerry's case, the parties did not dispute that Jerry died due to heart ailment during the term of his employment. Aside from the fact that respondent had submitted Jerry's death certificate, petitioner admits such fact of death as early as the time it had submitted its first position paper with the NLRC. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Thus, as we declared in Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin, Hermogenes v. Osco Shipping Services, Inc.,[12] Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation v. Sta. Rita, Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation v. Sta. Rita,[13] and Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc v. Beneficiaries of Allas,[14] in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. On this basis alone, the petition should be dismissed. | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| This Court, in Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin, Hermogenes v. Osco Shipping Services, Inc.,[15] and Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation v. Sta. Rita,[16] declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. As stated in Prudential, | |||||