Maritime Factors Inc. vs. Bienvenido R. Hindang

An employer seeking exemption from death compensation benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract on the ground that the seaman committed suicide bears the burden of proving the willful act by substantial evidence; an unsigned photocopy of a faxed translation of a foreign medical report, without proof of the original, the translator’s competence, or due execution, has no evidentiary value even in administrative proceedings.

Maritime Factors Inc. is a domestic manning agency that engaged Danilo R. Hindang, for and in behalf of its foreign principal Bahrain Marine Contracting/Panama, to work as GP/Deckhand on board the M/T “Reya,” a Panamanian-registered ocean-going vessel. Danilo’s employment was governed by the POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which provides death compensation benefits and an exception for death resulting from the seaman’s willful act on his own life. Respondent Bienvenido R. Hindang is Danilo’s brother.

On June 10, 1994, petitioner Maritime Factors Inc., a domestic manning agency acting for and in behalf of its foreign principal Bahrain Marine Contracting/Panama, engaged Danilo R. Hindang to work as GP/Deckhand on board the M/T “Reya,” a Panamanian-registered ocean-going vessel. The contract was for a period of 12 months with a basic monthly salary of US$230.00. Respondent Bienvenido R. Hindang is Danilo’s brother.

On July 27, 1994, while the vessel was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and on board the vessel, Chief Mate Marcial Lauron, Jr., AB Jaime Aguinaldo, and Oiler Allan P. Sarabia forced open Danilo’s cabin door by taking out the screws on the door lock with a screwdriver. Inside, they found Danilo’s body in the locker or wardrobe of his cabin, hanging by a strap on his neck in a kneeling position. Upon arriving at West Pier, Ras Tanurah, they turned over Danilo’s body to the Saudi police authorities, who brought the body to Dr. Ossman Abdel Hameed, the Medical Examiner of the Eastern Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was alleged that Dr. Hameed conducted an autopsy on Danilo’s remains and concluded that Danilo committed suicide by hanging himself.

Danilo’s remains were repatriated to the Philippines, where an autopsy was requested by Danilo’s family. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, a Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, who concluded that the cause of Danilo’s death was Asphyxia by Strangulation, Ligature. Dr. Reyes subsequently issued a Certification dated December 27, 1994 clarifying that Danilo died of Asphyxia by strangulation, which meant that somebody caused his death based on his autopsy findings.

On August 24, 1994, respondent filed for death compensation benefits pursuant to the POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels. The case was docketed as POEA Case No. 94-08-2599. Since efforts to settle the case amicably proved futile, the Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit their respective position papers. Petitioner claimed that based on Dr. Hameed’s medical jurisprudence report, Danilo committed suicide by hanging himself, making his death non-compensable. Petitioner submitted a photocopy of the fax transmission of a purported English translation of a 4-page medical jurisprudence report of Dr. Hameed stating that the cause of Danilo’s death was suicide by hanging himself. Petitioner also submitted the written report dated September 21, 1994 of Danilo’s fellow crew members stating that Danilo’s cabin door was locked, so they forced it open and found him inside the locker room hanging by his neck in a kneeling position.

Respondent contended that the NBI autopsy report categorically declared that the cause of Danilo’s death was Asphyxia by strangulation, ligature; that the alleged Dr. Hameed medical report could not be given legal effect because it was a mere photocopy of a fax transmission from petitioner’s foreign principal and was unreliable as to its due execution and genuineness. The Labor Arbiter found that Danilo did not commit suicide, crediting the NBI autopsy report over the photocopy of the faxed medical report, and found no proof that Danilo had been observed to be losing his mind as to kill himself. The Court of Appeals likewise found that the NBI autopsy report and Dr. Reyes’s certification established that Danilo died of Asphyxia by strangulation; it gave little credence to the crew members’ report and found that petitioner had admitted in its Answer that respondent was Danilo’s brother.

• Disregard of Saudi Medical Report: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in totally disregarding the medical jurisprudence report of the Saudi Arabian doctor who conducted an actual examination of the cadaver and ocular inspection of the place where the deceased was found, merely because the report was a photocopy of fax transmissions from petitioner’s foreign principal; the original document is in a foreign country, and administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by technical rules of procedure.
• Factual Conclusion Based on Speculation: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in making a factual conclusion not borne out by the record but grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjecture.
• Respondent’s Relationship: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent is the brother of the deceased despite the utter lack of basis to substantiate the relationship.
• Suicide / Non-Compensability: Petitioner claimed that Danilo’s death is not compensable because he committed suicide.
• Crew Members’ Report: Petitioner argued that the written report dated September 21, 1994, signed by Danilo’s fellow crew members, should have been considered and that it establishes that no other person except Danilo went inside the cabin before, during, and immediately after the incident.
• NBI Post-Mortem Findings: Petitioner contended that a reading of the NBI post-mortem findings shows that Danilo’s death was caused by Asphyxia by hanging and not by strangulation, because interstitial hematoma and hemorrhages appeared only on the front and side of the neck and not at the back or nape, which would not be the case if he had been strangled with a ligature.

• NBI Autopsy Report: Respondent contended that the NBI autopsy report categorically declared that the cause of Danilo’s death was Asphyxia by strangulation, ligature.
• Foreign Medical Report: Respondent argued that the alleged Dr. Hameed medical report cannot be given legal effect because it was a mere photocopy of a fax transmission from petitioner’s foreign principal, making it unreliable as to its due execution and genuineness.

• Suicide / Death Compensation: Whether Danilo committed suicide during the term of his employment contract, which would exempt petitioner from paying death compensation benefits to his beneficiaries.
• Evidentiary Value of Foreign Medical Report: Whether the photocopy of the fax transmission of the alleged English translation of Dr. Hameed’s medical report should be admitted and considered as proof of suicide despite being a mere photocopy and unsigned.
• Crew Members’ Report: Whether the written report dated September 21, 1994 of Danilo’s fellow crew members proves that Danilo committed suicide.
• NBI Post-Mortem Findings: Whether the NBI post-mortem findings show that Danilo died by hanging rather than by strangulation.
• Respondent’s Relationship: Whether respondent failed to prove or establish his relationship to the deceased seaman.

• Suicide / Death Compensation: No. The employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that Danilo committed suicide; death during the employment term made petitioner liable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
• Evidentiary Value of Foreign Medical Report: No. The photocopy of the fax transmission of the alleged translated medical report was correctly denied consideration because its genuineness and due execution were unverifiable and it was unsigned by Dr. Hameed.
• Crew Members’ Report: No. The report fails to satisfactorily show the circumstances surrounding Danilo’s death nor proves that he committed suicide.
• NBI Post-Mortem Findings: No. Petitioner’s layman interpretation cannot substitute Dr. Reyes’s medical findings; the NBI findings and certification established Asphyxia by strangulation, ligature.
• Respondent’s Relationship: No. Respondent’s relationship was established by the seafarer information sheet, the special power of attorney from Danilo’s beneficiary Elpedia, and petitioner’s admission in its Answer.

• Suicide / Death Compensation: Under Part II, Section C, Nos. 1 and 6 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, death during the term of the contract entitles the seaman’s beneficiaries to US$50,000.00 and an additional US$7,000.00 to each child under twenty-one but not exceeding four children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. No compensation is payable for death resulting from a willful act on the seaman’s own life, provided the employer proves that the death is directly attributable to him. Once death during the effectivity of the employment contract is established, the employer is liable; the exception is not absolute, and the burden of proof rests on the employer. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals found that Danilo died of Asphyxia by strangulation based on the NBI post-mortem findings and Dr. Reyes’s certification, and petitioner’s evidence did not suffice to prove suicide. The records were thus bereft of substantial evidence that petitioner discharged its burden to evade liability for death benefits.
• Evidentiary Value of Foreign Medical Report: Petitioner stated in its pleadings that the medical report was the English translation of Dr. Hameed’s report, but the existence of the original medical report written in Arabic was not attached to the records and was not proved. The identity of the person who made the translation and whether the translator had recognized competence in both English and the original language were not established, so there was no clear assurance that the translated words accurately reflected the original medical report. More importantly, the alleged translated medical report was not signed by Dr. Hameed, creating doubt as to its authenticity; the unsigned translated medical report was a self-serving document with no evidentiary value even in administrative proceedings. Although administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by technical rules of procedure, this does not license disregard of fundamental evidentiary rules, and evidence must at least have a modicum of admissibility for probative value, as held in Uichico vs. NLRC. Proof of authenticity or reliability is required as a condition for admission of documents, and Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court governs proof of official records, including foreign public documents. The photocopy of the fax transmission of the alleged translated medical report was therefore correctly denied consideration.
• Crew Members’ Report: The report fails to satisfactorily show the circumstances surrounding Danilo’s death nor proves that he committed suicide. The Court of Appeals observed that there was nothing in the report showing that the deceased committed suicide, considering that the key to the room was inside the keyhole and the keyhole was inside the room; no one can prevent a determined villain from entering the room while the door was open when the deceased was inside, and after strangling the victim, the villain could slip away, close, and lock the door. The report did not establish that no other person could have entered the cabin.
• NBI Post-Mortem Findings: Dr. Reyes wrote in his post-mortem findings that there were interstitial hematoma and hemorrhages involving tissues of the anterior aspect of the neck and both lateral aspects; ligature marks practically all over the anterior aspect of the neck with the greatest diameter of 1.5 cm. and smallest of 1.0 cm., the opposite being the back of the neck or the nape, probably the convergent point, but skin and tissues of this area were undergoing decomposition as a result of tightening and trauma with areas of hemorrhages still visible; there was fracture of two tracheal rings, upper, and severance of carotid blood vessels over the left side; and fracture of the cornu of the hyoid bone was also noted. The cause of death was Asphyxia by strangulation, ligature. Based on the NBI findings, the front and side of Danilo’s neck were not the only portions with clotted blood but his nape as well. Petitioner’s layman interpretation of the NBI post-mortem findings cannot substitute the medical findings and conclusion made by Dr. Reyes in the regular performance of his duty as NBI Medico-Legal Officer. Dr. Reyes’s certification deserved full credence in the absence of any expert evidence to the contrary, and there was no showing that he had motive to falsify.
• Respondent’s Relationship: In Danilo’s seafarer information sheet filed with the POEA, he named his mother, Elpedia R. Hindang, as his beneficiary. Elpedia executed a Special Power of Attorney dated October 10, 1994, appointing respondent, her son, as her true and lawful attorney-in-fact to perform, among others, the filing of claims relative to the death of her son Danilo while on board the vessel, and to perform any and all acts necessary thereto to accomplish the purpose by which the authority was delegated. It was therefore established that respondent is a brother of the deceased seaman and was appointed by Danilo’s beneficiary Elpedia to be the latter’s attorney-in-fact in the claim for death compensation benefits. Moreover, petitioner could not deny respondent’s relationship with Danilo after admitting in its Answer filed with the Labor Arbiter that respondent is the brother of Danilo.

• Employer liability and suicide exception under the POEA Standard Employment Contract — When a seaman dies during the term of employment, the employer is liable for death compensation benefits. The employer is exempt only if it proves that the death resulted from the seaman’s willful act on his own life and was directly attributable to him. The burden of proof rests on the employer. In this case, petitioner failed to prove suicide, so liability subsisted.
• Substantial evidence and finality of labor tribunal findings — Findings of fact and conclusions of the NLRC are generally accorded great weight, respect, and finality and are binding on the Supreme Court if supported by substantial evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts and does not re-evaluate evidence or credibility. The Court adopted the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals findings that Danilo died of Asphyxia by strangulation.
• Modicum of admissibility in administrative proceedings — Although administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by technical rules of procedure, this does not license disregard of fundamental evidentiary rules; evidence must at least have a modicum of admissibility to have probative value. Applied to reject the photocopy of the faxed, unsigned translated medical report.
• Proof of foreign official records — A foreign public record may be evidenced by official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody and, if the record is not in the Philippines, accompanied by a certificate from a Philippine embassy or consular officer authenticated by the seal of his office. The alleged foreign medical report was not authenticated, and its original and translator were not proved.
• Expert medical findings over lay interpretation — The medical findings and conclusion of a medico-legal officer, done in the regular performance of duty, deserve full credence absent expert evidence to the contrary; a layman’s interpretation of post-mortem findings cannot substitute for expert medical conclusion. Applied to uphold Dr. Reyes’s conclusion of Asphyxia by strangulation, ligature.

• "No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death resulting from a willful act on his own life by the seaman, provided, however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to him." — This provision states the suicide exception and places the burden of proof on the employer; it is the basis for denying exemption from death benefits.
• "It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value x x x" — Quoted from Uichico vs. NLRC to reject petitioner’s argument that technical rules do not apply; it establishes the evidentiary threshold in labor proceedings.
• "The unsigned translated medical report is nothing but a self-serving document which ought to be treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any evidentiary value even in administrative proceedings." — This explains why the photocopy of the faxed translation was not considered as proof of suicide.
• "Considering the foregoing, we find that the records are bereft of any substantial evidence showing that petitioner employer successfully discharged its burden of proving that Danilo committed suicide so as to evade its liability for death benefits under POEA's Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seaman." — This states the ratio decidendi on the employer’s failure to prove the suicide exception.

• Uichico vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121434, June 2, 1997, 273 SCRA 35 — Cited for the rule that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by technical rules but evidence must have a modicum of admissibility for probative value.
• NFD International Manning Agents vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 116629, January 16, 1998, 284 SCRA 239 — Cited for the rule that death during the term of employment makes the employer liable, subject to the exception for injury directly attributable to the seaman’s deliberate or willful act.
• Lapid vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 117518, April 29, 1999, 306 SCRA 349 — Cited for the burden of proof on the employer to prove suicide and for the conclusion that the records lacked substantial evidence of suicide.
• G & M (Phil.), Inc. vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 141802, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 180 — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that judicial review of labor cases is limited to sufficiency of evidence.
• Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB-ALU) vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140150, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 483 — Cited for the rule that NLRC findings supported by substantial evidence are binding on the Court.
• IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 365 Phil. 137 (1999) — Cited for the requirement of proof of authenticity or reliability as a condition for admission of documents.
• Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation vs. NLRC, No. L-76595, May 6, 1988, 161 SCRA 122 — Cited in connection with the requirement for establishing the translator’s competence in translating the foreign-language document.

• Part II, Section C, No. 1, POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels — Provides death compensation of US$50,000.00 and an additional US$7,000.00 to each child under twenty-one but not exceeding four children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. Applied as the basis for the death benefits award.
• Part II, Section C, No. 6, POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels — Provides that no compensation shall be payable for injury, incapacity, disability, or death resulting from a willful act on the seaman’s own life, provided the employer proves that the death is directly attributable to him. Applied to deny exemption because petitioner failed to prove suicide.
• Rule 132, Section 24, Rules of Court — Proof of official record; a foreign public record may be evidenced by official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody, accompanied by a certificate from a Philippine embassy or consular officer authenticated by the seal of his office. Applied to reject the unauthenticated foreign medical report.
• Revised Standard Employment Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, Section 20[A], No. 1 and Section 20(D) — The decision notes that the POEA Standard Employment Contract provisions relied upon now appear in these revised provisions, which retain the death benefit and willful-act exception. Cited as the current counterpart of the governing contract terms.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred.