one of the most common defenses of manning agencies and foreign principals to escape liability is that the seafarer committed suicide. in ricardo b. lapid, in behalf of ariel lapid, vs. national labor relations commission, phil hanse ship agency, inc. and malayan insurance company, g.r. no. 117518, april 9, 1999, the lifeless body of ariel lapid was found hanging by the neck from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse in Quebec, Canada.
the supreme court discredited the coroner's report because:
- x x x First, it is not disputed that the report contained a finding that death was caused by asphyxia by hanging and that it could not be conclusive as to circumstances regarding Ariel’s death.
- Second, the phrase “report shall be completed upon receipt of all necessary or useful documents and facts” stated in Dr. Paquin’s report emphasizes the wanting attribute of the indeterminate report. Plainly, PHIL HANSE failed to ascertain the circumstances surrounding Ariel’s death which it was its duty to undertake as Ariel’s employer. Such willful neglect cannot but indicate to us that under the circumstances a thorough investigation would have yielded a result adverse to respondent employer x x x
- In the instant case, the evidence presented by PHIL HANSE to prove that suicide was committed is lean, frail and far from convincing. The coroner’s incomplete report cannot be the basis of a categorical pronouncement that Ariel committed suicide. Respondent tried in vain to explain the other bruises of Ariel; however, its justifications that these bruises were caused by his flailing about after he hanged himself, or by acting in a self-loathing behavior, or by working as a steward were mere conjectures and could not gainsay that Ariel was a victim of foul play. Moreover, while hematoma just below the ligature mark on the neck may have been consistent with suicide, it is more accurately accordant with marks on a person who died by strangulation, whether he took his own life or not. Rather than prove that Ariel killed himself, it illuminated the chasm between the proof presented and the commission of suicide.Respondent further attempted to show that Ariel committed suicide by presenting his co-employees to assert that the deceased was having a family problem which, on close scrutiny however, they could not identify. Apparently, the problem, if any, must have been so serious as to cause Ariel to take his own life. But this supposition was contradicted by his letters to his family showing his excitement to go home, and by the sworn declaration of one of his co-employees that Ariel went out specifically to buy luggage tapes, again, proving his eagerness to go home. On these equivocal avowals, this Court is not prepared to rule that Ariel took his own life. The records are bereft of any substantial evidence showing that respondent employer successfully discharged its burden of proving that Ariel committed suicide, so as to evade its liability for death benefits under POEA’s Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seaman.
