[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
64 views2 pages

Liability for Seaman's Death in Transit

The case involves a Filipino seaman, Jeremias Pineda, who was contracted to work on a vessel from December 1988 to September 1989. After being discharged in Dubai, he was killed while in transit in Bangkok, Thailand after disembarking on his own and attacking a Thai police officer. The seaman's mother filed a claim for death benefits against the manning agency and vessel owners. The NLRC ruled the employers were still responsible for ensuring the seaman's safe repatriation home as his insurance coverage extended 60 days past his contract termination.

Uploaded by

Rhea Calabines
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views2 pages

Liability for Seaman's Death in Transit

The case involves a Filipino seaman, Jeremias Pineda, who was contracted to work on a vessel from December 1988 to September 1989. After being discharged in Dubai, he was killed while in transit in Bangkok, Thailand after disembarking on his own and attacking a Thai police officer. The seaman's mother filed a claim for death benefits against the manning agency and vessel owners. The NLRC ruled the employers were still responsible for ensuring the seaman's safe repatriation home as his insurance coverage extended 60 days past his contract termination.

Uploaded by

Rhea Calabines
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC.

, FIRCROFT SHIPPING
CORPORATION and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CONSTANCIA PINEDA

FACTS:

Jeremias Pineda was contracted to work as Oiler on board the vessel, MV Amazonia,
from Dec. 21, 1988 to Sept. 28,1989. When he finished his contract, he was discharged
from the port of Dubai for repatriation to Manila. During his layover in Bangkok,
Thailand, he disembarked on his own free will and failed to join the connecting flight to
Hongkong. During which, he was shot by a Thai Policeman and died. The police report
submitted to the Philippine Embassy in Bangkok confirmed that it was Pineda who
„approached and tried to stab the police sergeant with a knife and that therefore he was
forced to pull out his gun and shot Pineda.

The deceased‟s mother, Constancia Pineda, filed for death compensation benefits
against Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. and it foreign principal, Fircroft Shipping
Corporation and the Times Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. They averred that the
deceased seaman was suffering from mental disorder aggravated by threats on his life by
his fellow seamen, the Ship Captain should not have allowed him to travel alone.

Respondent agency averred that they are not liable to pay any death/burial benefits
pursuant to the provisions of Par. 6, Section C, Part II, POEA-SEC which states that „no
compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death
resulting from a willfull act on his own life by the seaman‟; that the deceased seaman
died due to his own wilfull act in attacking a policeman in Bangkok who shot him in self-
defense.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the local crewing or manning agent and its foreign principal are liable
for the death of a Filipino seaman-employee who, after having been discharged, was
killed in-transit while being repatriated home

RULING:

Though the termination of the employment contract was duly effected in Dubai, still, the
responsibility of the foreign employer to see to it that Pineda was duly repatriated to the
point of hiring subsisted. Section 4, Rule VIII of the Rules and Regulations Governing
Overseas Employment clearly provides for the duration of the mandatory personal
accident and life insurance covering accidental death, dismemberment and disability of
overseas workers:

“Section 4. Duration of Insurance Coverage.—The minimum coverage shall take effect


upon payment of the premium and shall be extended worldwide, on and off the job, for
the duration of the worker‟s contract plus 60 calendar days after termination of the
contract of employment‟, provided that in no case shall the duration of the insurance
coverage be less than one year.”

The foreign employer may not have been obligated by its contract to provide a
companion for a returning employee, but it cannot deny that it was expressly tasked by
its agreement to assure the safe return of said worker. The uncaring attitude displayed
by petitioners who, knowing fully well that its employee had been suffering from some
mental disorder, nevertheless still allowed him to travel home alone is appalling.

You might also like