GR 200576; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200576 & 200626 November 20, 2017
MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. and AP MOLLER SINGAPORE PTE LTD., Petitioners vs. ROSEMARY G. MALICSE, Respondent
FACTS
Efren B. Malicse, an able-bodied seaman, was employed by petitioners for a nine-month contract. Four months into his deployment, he fell ill, complaining of fever and headache. After initial treatment on board proved ineffective, he was admitted to a hospital in Panama where he subsequently died. The death certificate and autopsy report indicated the cause as multiple organ failure secondary to septicemia. Petitioners paid burial benefits and offered USD 40,000 as death benefits, equivalent to half the amount stipulated in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Respondent Rosemary Malicse, the seafarer’s widow, demanded full death benefits under the International Transport Workers’ Federation Standard Collective Agreement (ITF Agreement), which grants benefits regardless of the cause of death. Petitioners refused, arguing the death was not work-related.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether respondent is entitled to full death benefits under the ITF Agreement, and which among the POEA-SEC, the CBA, and the ITF Agreement governs the claim.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming the award of full death benefits. The Court held that the ITF Agreement, being the overriding instrument agreed upon by the parties, governs the claim. It explicitly provides for death benefits “through any cause,” removing the requirement for the illness to be work-related. The Court clarified that while the POEA-SEC generally requires proof of work-relatedness for compensability, a more favorable stipulation in a CBA or an overriding agreement like the ITF Agreement prevails. Consequently, the petitioners’ obligation to pay the full death benefit under the ITF Agreement became due upon the seafarer’s death during the term of his contract. The Court also upheld the awards of moral and exemplary damages, finding that the petitioners’ refusal to provide a copy of the ITF Agreement and their offer of only half the benefit constituted evident bad faith. The petitioners failed to discharge their burden, as employers, to prove that a more restrictive benefits regime should apply when a superior agreement exists.