suicide

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.

case on illegal dismissal

an example of a case for illegal dismissal is nfd international manning agents and a/s vulcanus oslo versus national labor relations commission, jose i. ilagan, jr. and constantino co, g.r. no. 165389, october 17, 2008. the court said, 

The minimum requirement of due process in termination proceedings, which must be complied with even with respect to seamen on board a vessel, consists of notice to the employees intended to be dismissed and the grant to them of an opportunity to present their own side on the alleged offense or misconduct, which led to the management’s decision to terminate. To meet the requirements of due process, the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected, i.e., (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice after due hearing which informs the employee of the employers' decision to dismiss him.

(you can find complete text of the case on the supreme court website, lawphil or chanrobles).

sources of rights of seafarers

seafarers have several rights and can be considered, to a certain extent, more favored than land-based workers. for example, seafarers have no placement fee. on the other hand, land-based workers have to pay a certain amount, depending on their destination and job, as their placement fee.

what are the sources of seafarers rights? we have:

1. the law; and

2. contracts. 

(this is similar to the philippine civil code on obligations. article 1157 provides that:

Obligations arise from:

1. law;

2. contracts;

3. quasi-contracts;

4. acts and omissions punishable by law; and

5. quasi-delicts.

***numbers 3 to 5 can really fall under the category of law***)

under the law, seafarers have rights under:

1. republic act 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 (this was amended by republic act 10022);

2. the labor code (presidential decree 422)

3. the civil code

4. the 1987 constitution.

when it comes to contracts, seafarers have rights under:

1. the philippine overseas employment administration standard employment contract (also known as the poea-sec); and

2. collective bargaining agreement (or "cba") for union members.

the poea-sec provides for the minimum standard terms and conditions of employment. cbas have higher and better terms and conditions of employment. in exchange, however, union members will have to pay union dues.


reading all these can be quite a chore but the gains are quite BENEFICIAL. always remember that KNOWLEDGE IS YOUR BEST WEAPON!