G.R. No. 110637 October 7, 1994
RAMON RASE and ROSITA RASE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G & M (Phils.), INC., and RIYADH MEDICAL CENTER, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ramon and Rosita Rase are the parents of Marilyn Rase, who was recruited by private respondent G & M (Phils.), Inc. to work as a nursing aide at Riyadh Medical Center in Saudi Arabia with a monthly salary of US$400. She left for Saudi Arabia on July 2, 1987. Marilyn died of acute viral encephalitis on March 6, 1989. At the time of her death, she was working as a domestic helper for Sheik Fahad Al Owaidah and not at the Riyadh Medical Center. The petitioners filed a complaint before the POEA for salary differential, death and burial benefits, and reimbursement of P50,000 in expenses, alleging Marilyn was made to work as a domestic helper shortly after arrival, violating her approved contract. G & M denied knowledge of the change in employment and claimed Marilyn’s death was not work-connected. The POEA Administrator ruled in favor of the petitioners, awarding death benefits, burial allowance, and salary differential, finding that Marilyn worked as a domestic helper based on her letter dated July 24, 1987, and an affidavit from a co-worker, Imelda Enciong. The NLRC reversed the POEA decision, holding that Marilyn voluntarily resigned from Riyadh Medical Center to work elsewhere, thus violating her contract and disentitling her to the claims.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the POEA’s award of salary differential; and (2) Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the POEA’s award of death and burial benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the NLRC decision and REINSTATED the POEA decision regarding salary differential but SET ASIDE the award for death benefits and burial allowance.
On the salary differential, the Court found the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the POEA’s factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence, including Marilyn’s letter and Imelda Enciong’s affidavit, proving she worked as a domestic helper with lower pay. The NLRC’s reliance on the alleged resignation letter was erroneous as it was submitted late and its authenticity was questionable. The employer failed to prove full payment of the stipulated salary, making it liable for the differential.
On the death and burial benefits, the Court agreed with the NLRC that the claim was not meritorious. While Marilyn died during her employment period, there was insufficient evidence to establish that her illness (acute viral encephalitis) was work-connected or that her work environment as a domestic helper caused the disease. The presumption of compensability under the Labor Code does not apply as the illness is not an occupational disease. Therefore, the award for death benefits and burial allowance was denied. Costs were imposed on private respondent G & M (Phils.), Inc.