INC Shipmgmt v. Moradas (G.R. No. 178564; January 15, 2014)
FACTS: Alexander L. Moradas (respondent) was employed as wiper for the vessel MV Commander (vessel) by petitioner INC Shipmanagement, Inc., for a period of 10 months.
On October 13, 2000, respondent claimed that while he was disposing of the garbage in the incinerator room of the vessel, certain chemicals splashed all over his body because of an explosion. He was sent to the hospital. The attending physician of St. Luke's Medical Center, Dr. Alegre, reported that the respondents thermal burns were estimated to fully heal within a period of 3 to 4 months. Respondent demanded for the payment of his full disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), in the amount of US$60,000.00, which petitioners refused to heed.
The petitioners denied respondent's claims, contending his injury was self-inflicted. They denied that the incinerator exploded and claimed that respondent burned himself by pouring paint thinner on his overalls and thereafter set himself on fire. They averred that he was led to commit such act after he was caught stealing the vessels supplies. They also alleged that there was a flooding incident caused by the respondent. All allegations were supported by affidavits and statements executed by vessel officers and crew members. In addition, Antonio Gile (Gile), attested that he saw respondent go to the paint room and there soak his hands in a can full of thinner.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor or petitioners, dismissing respondents complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter also held that respondent's injury was self-inflicted and that no incinerator explosion occurred that would have caused the latter's injuries.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter. It pointed out that respondents mental or physical fitness was not at issue since respondent was motivated to inflict injury to himself for reasons related to his impending discharge and not because of his disposition. The NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent.
The CA rendered a decision holding that grave abuse of discretion tainted the NLRC ruling. It found that it was contrary to human nature and experience for respondent to burn himself. It also pointed out that no evidence was presented to show that respondent had no business near the engine room. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners.
ISSUE:
Did the CA err in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it denied respondent's claim for disability benefits?
HELD: The prevailing rule under Section 20(B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC on compensation and benefits for injury or illness was that an employer shall be liable for the injury or illness suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract. There was no need to show that such injury was work-related except that it must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. The rule, however, is not absolute and the employer may be exempt from liability if he can successfully prove that the cause of the seaman's injury was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act as provided under Section 20 (D) thereof, to wit: D. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to seafarer.
Records show that the LA and NLRC gave credence to the corroborating testimonies of the crewmen pointing to respondent as the person who deliberately caused the flooding incident. In particular, respondent was seen alone in the vicinity of the portside sea chest which cover was found to have been intentionally removed and thereby caused the flooding.
The purported explosion in the incinerator was belied by Gile who also claimed that there was no fire in the incinerator room at the time respondent got burned. This was corroborated by Bejada who testified having ordered an ordinary seaman that was burning deck waste in the incinerator early that day to extinguish the fire with water and close up the incinerator door because of bad weather conditions. Accordingly, an inspection of the incinerator after the incident showed that there were unburnt cardboard cartons found inside with no sign of explosion and the steel plates surrounding it were cool to the touch.
Both the LA and the NLRC made a factual finding that prior to the burning incident, respondent was caught pilfering the vessels supplies for which he was told that he was to be relieved from his duties. This adequately supports the reasonable conclusion that respondent may have harbored a grudge against the captain and the chief steward who denied giving him the questioned items. At the very least, it was natural for him to brood over feelings of resentment considering his impending dismissal. These incidents shore up the theory that he was motivated to commit an act of sabotage which, however, backfired into his own burning.
GRANTED
