G.R. No. 243459 , June 08, 2020
HEIRS OF THE LATE MARCELINO O. NEPOMUCENO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE, MA. FE L. NEPOMUCENO, PETITIONERS, VS. NAESS SHIPPING PHILS., INC./ROYAL DRAGON OCEAN TRANSPORT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Marcelino O. Nepomuceno was engaged by NAESS Shipping Philippines, Inc., through its local manning agent Royal Dragon Ocean Transport, Inc., to work as 2nd Engineer on board the vessel M/V Meilling 1 under a Contract of Employment dated October 10, 2013. On December 17, 2013, he was found dead in his cabin. The Autopsy Report stated the cause of death was myocardial infarction (heart attack). His heirs sought to claim death benefits under the Contract’s Addendum. Section C, Part II of the Addendum provided: (1) disability compensation for work-related injuries suffered not through the seafarer’s fault, with the Company obliged to take out necessary insurance to cover such benefits; and (2) that no compensation shall be payable for injury, incapacity, disability, or death resulting from a deliberate or willful act by the seaman against himself. The respondents denied the claim. The Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding the Addendum covered only disability compensation for work-related injuries, not death, and that petitioners failed to prove the death was work-related. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Addendum did not provide for death benefits, and thus the Labor Code provisions should apply, with petitioners’ recourse being to claim from the Social Security System. The CA also noted respondents had paid for autopsy, transportation of remains, interment, and burial.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are entitled to death benefits under the specific provisions of the Addendum to Nepomuceno’s employment contract.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the subject provisions of the Addendum were clear: the respondents’ obligation to take out necessary insurance pertained only to disability compensation for work-related injuries. The Addendum contained gaps regarding the payment of death benefits, as it did not specify what constitutes death benefits, the amount, or other details. The Court cannot supply missing contract terms under the guise of interpretation. Since the contract language was plain, the intention of the parties must be gathered from that language alone. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on whether the death was work-related to avoid preempting any determination in another recourse petitioners may pursue for other benefits. The Court also denied the claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, finding no bad faith, fraud, or oppressive manner on the part of respondents in denying the claim, as they acted based on their interpretation of the contract and extended assistance for the interment and burial.