G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015
ONE SHIPPING CORP., and/or ONE SHIPPING KABUSHIKI KAISHA/JAPAN, Petitioner, vs. IMELDA C. PENAFIEL, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner One Shipping Corp., for its principal One Shipping Kabushiki Kaisha/Japan, hired Ildefonso S. Peñafiel as Second Engineer on board MV/ACX Magnolia for twelve months, starting August 29, 2004. He died on July 2, 2005. His wife, respondent Imelda C. Peñafiel, filed monetary claims arising from his death. Respondent alleged that while working, Ildefonso felt chest pain and shortness of breath, informed his superior who ignored him, and disembarked on May 21, 2005. Upon arrival in the Philippines, he reported to the petitioner manning agency for medical attention but was instead informed he was scheduled for next deployment and was required to undergo a pre-employment medical examination at PMP Diagnostic Center, Inc. on July 2, 2005. After completing the examinations, he collapsed, was brought to Philippine General Hospital, and died the same day due to myocardial infarction. Petitioners admitted hiring Ildefonso but denied liability, claiming that at the time of his death, he was no longer their employee as he had voluntarily terminated his contract by requesting a leave and pre-terminating his contract on April 9, 2005, disembarking on May 21, 2005. They alleged that in early June 2005, Ildefonso reported to their office applying for new employment and was advised to undergo pre-employment medical examination. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, reversed the NLRC resolutions, and ordered petitioners to pay death and burial benefits.

ISSUE

The core issues, as synthesized from the petition, are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the NLRC resolutions that petitioners claim had become final and executory; (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioners liable for death benefits despite the alleged absence of an employer-employee relationship at the time of death and in concluding the death was work-related without sufficient evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the Decision of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC.
1. On the issue of finality of judgment, the Court found petitioners’ argument meritorious. Applying the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the NLRC Resolution dated March 31, 2008, denying the motion for reconsideration, became final and executory ten calendar days after respondent’s receipt on April 29, 2008, or on May 10, 2008. The respondent filed her petition for certiorari with the CA on June 25, 2008, beyond the reglementary period. The CA therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The doctrine of immutability of final judgment applies, and the belated issuance of an Entry of Judgment by the NLRC dated June 10, 2009, stating finality on June 16, 2008, did not alter this fact.
2. On the substantive issue of liability, the Court, citing Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, held that for death to be compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, it must occur during the term of the contract. The employer-employee relationship was severed when Ildefonso pre-terminated his contract and disembarked on May 21, 2005. His death on July 2, 2005, while undergoing a medical examination for a new application, occurred after the termination of his contract. The cause of death, myocardial infarction, was not shown to be work-related or aggravated by his work during the term of his employment. The Court emphasized that while the Constitution mandates protection to labor, this policy should not be used to oppress employers or sanction unjust enrichment. The claim for death benefits must be anchored on clear, not merely equitable, grounds.