G.R. No. 240950 . July 29, 2020
EASTERN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CENTER, INC., AL AWADH COMPANY TRADING AND CONTRACTING, MR. JUAN VILLABLANCA AND MRS. GLORIA ODULIO VILLABLANCA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF THE DECEASED NOMER P. ODULIO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE, MAY IMBAG ODULIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Nomer P. Odulio was hired as a cable electrician by Al Awadh Company in Saudi Arabia through its Philippine placement agency, Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc., under a two-year contract from 2007 to 2009. After the contract expired in 2009, he continued working for Al Awadh Company until he returned to the Philippines in April 2011. On June 6, 2011, Nomer returned to Saudi Arabia to work as a lineman for Al Awadh Company under a 12-month contract. He died of heart failure on May 19, 2012, during his employment. His heirs filed a complaint for death benefits, citing Section 37-A of Republic Act No. 8042 , as amended, which mandates compulsory insurance for agency-hired workers at no cost to the worker. Petitioners contended that Nomer was rehired in June 2011 without Eastern Overseas’ participation, making him a direct rehire not covered by compulsory insurance, and that he was merely a worker-on-leave finishing an unexpired contract. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the heirs, awarding US$10,000 plus attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed, holding Nomer was a rehire not covered by insurance. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether Nomer P. Odulio was covered by a compulsory insurance policy under Section 37-A of R.A. 8042, as amended, at the time of his death in 2012.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, ruling that Nomer was an agency-hired worker covered by compulsory insurance. The Court examined the factual issues as an exception to the general rule, given the contradictory findings of the CA and NLRC. It found that Nomer’s return to Saudi Arabia in June 2011 was under a new contract processed by Eastern Overseas, as evidenced by his OFW Information Sheet which listed Eastern Overseas as his local agent and his contract status as “New.” The Court rejected the argument that he was a worker-on-leave (a rehire returning to finish an unexpired contract), as his 2009 contract had already expired and he had returned to the Philippines in April 2011. Therefore, as an agency-hired worker deployed through Eastern Overseas in June 2011, he was compulsorily entitled to insurance coverage at no cost to him. Petitioners were ordered to pay respondents US$10,000.00, or its Philippine Peso equivalent, plus attorney’s fees and legal interest.