Jose Aspiras Malicdem vs. Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 224753, June 19, 2019

DOCTRINES:

For disability to be compensable under Section 20(A) of the Amended Standard Terms and
Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-Going
Ships issued on October 26, 2010 (2010 POEA-SEC),49

Two (2) elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the
work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment
contract.50
Relevantly, the 2010 POEA-SEC defines "work-[r]elated illness" as "any sickness as a result of an
occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of [the] Contract with the conditions set therein
satisfied."51

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS The liabilities of

the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract
are as follows: 3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention,
the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer. For this purpose, the seafarer
shall submit himself to post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician
within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in
which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the
course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated
physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed
by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall
result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied) 53

Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC grants to him, the law requires the seafarer to prove that:
(1) he suffered an illness; (2) he suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract;
(3) he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20(A)(3); ( 4) his illness is one of
the enumerated occupational disease or that his illness or injury is otherwise work-related; and (5)
he complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32(A) for an occupational disease
or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be compensable.54

The rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish
his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. 57

The rationale behind the rule can easily be divined. Within three days from repatriation, it
would be fairly easier for a physician to determine if the illness was work-related or not. After that
period, there would be difficulty in ascertaining the real cause of the illness. To ignore the rule
would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to a
limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits. It would certainly be unfair to the
employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness considering the
passage of time. In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability
claims.66

Under A11icle 192(c)(l) of the Labor Code, permanent total disability includes temporary
total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty (120) days, except as
otherwise provided in the Rules. The rule adverted to is Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules
on Employees' Compensation, implementing Book IV of the Labor Code, which states: SECTION
2. Period of entitlement. (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such
disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days
except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to
exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall
be paid. However, the System may declare the total and pennant status at any time after 120 days
of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or
impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.67

Section 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption that illnesses
not listed as an occupational disease in Section 32 are work-related. This disputable presumption
is made in the law to signify that the non-inclusion in the list of compensable diseases/illnesses
does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits. At the same time, however,
this disputable presumption does not signify an automatic grant of compensation and/or benefits
claim. 73

FOOTNOTES:

49
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS The liabilities of the
employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract
are as follows: xx xx (Emphasis supplied)
50
De Leon v. Maun/ad Trans, Inc., 805 Phil. 531, 539 (2017).
51
2010 POEA-SEC, Definition of Terms (16).
53
Section 20(A)(3)
54
Aldaba v. Career Philippines Ship-Management, Inc., 811 Phil. 486, 498 (2017).
57
Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and/or Alliance Marine Services, Ltd v. Undag, 678 Phil. 938, 946-947
(2011), citing Coot au co v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc., 629 Phil. 506, 519 (20 l O);
Wal/em Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan, 693 Phil. 416,430 (2012); Andrada v. Agemar
Manning Agency, Inc., 698 Phil. 170, 184 (2012).
66
Id. at 948-949.
67
Under A11icle 192(c)(l) of the Labor Code,
73
See Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, 743 Phil. 371,388 (2014).
 Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and/or Star Clippers, Ltd. vs. Edgardo M. Mirasol
G.R. No. 213874, June 19, 2019

DOCTRINES:
The Court summarized the rules when a seafarer claims total and permanent disability
benefits, as follows:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's
disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days,
without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days
with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The
employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient
justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period
of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any
justification.27

FOOTNOTES:

27
Id. at 362-363.
 Celia R. Atienza Vs. Noel Sacramento Saluta
G.R. No. 233413. June 17, 2019

DOCTRINES:

In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its
dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can
prosper, an
employer-employee relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of CRY
Corporation, it is incumbent upon the respondent to prove the employer-employee relationship by
substantial evidence. 17

The burden to prove the elements of an employer-employee relationship, viz.:

(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power of control, lies upon the respondent.18

To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has

invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the employee's conduct, or the so-called "control test."21

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his

employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by
the employer. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to
sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is
manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the [employee] has no more intention
to work. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was
deliberate and unjustified.30

Article 141, Chapter III, Book III on Employment of House helpers of the Labor Code
provides that family drivers are covered in the term domestic or household service. It states:
ART. 141. Coverage. -This Chapter shall apply to all persons rendering services in
household for compensation.
"Domestic or household service" shall mean service in the employer's home which is
usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes ministering
to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the; employer’s household, including
services of family drivers. 31
 ART. 149. Indemnity for unjust termination of services. -If the period of household service
is fixed, neither the employer nor the househelper may terminate the contract before the expiration
of the term, except for a just cause. If the househelper is unjustly dismissed, he or she shall be paid
the compensation already earned plus that for fifteen (15) days by way of indemnity.
If the househelper leaves without justifiable reason, he or she shall forfeit any unpaid salary
due him or her not exceeding fifteen (15) days. 32

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the term:

(d) Domestic worker or "Kasambahay" refers to any person engaged in domestic work
within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general house help,
nursemaid or "yaya", cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who
performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.
The term shall not include children who are under foster family arrangement, and are
provided access to education and given an allowance incidental to education, i.e. [,] "baon",
transportation, school projects and school activities.33

SEC. 2. Coverage. - This xx x [IRR] shall apply to all parties to an employment contract
for the services of the following Kasambahay, whether on a live-in or live-out arrangement, such
as but
not limited to:
General house help;
1) Yaya;
2) Cook;
3) Gardener;
4) Laundry person; or
5) Any person who regularly performs domestic work in one
6) household on an occupational basis.
The following are not covered:
(a) Service providers;
(b) Family drivers;
(c) Children under foster family arrangement; and
(d) Any other person who performs work occasionally or sporadically and not on an
occupational basis.34

SEC. 1 -Household Service.

ART. 1689. Household service shall always be reasonably compensated. Any stipulation
that household service is without compensation shall be void. Such compensation shall be in
addition to
the [house helper’s] lodging, food, and medical attendance.
ART. 1697. If the period for household service is fixed neither the head of the family nor the
[househelper] may terminate the contract before the expiration of the term, except for a just cause.
If the [househelper] is unjustly dismissed, he shall be paid the compensation already earned plus
that for fifteen days by way of indemnity. If the [househelper] leaves without justifiable reason, he
shall forfeit any salary due him and unpaid, for not exceeding fifteen days.
 ART. 1699. Upon the extinguishment of the service relation, the [househelper] may
demand from the head of the family a written statement on the nature and duration of the service
and the efficiency and conduct of the [househelper]35

ART. 302. Repealing clause. - All labor laws not adopted as part of this Code either directly
or by reference are hereby repealed. All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and
regulations
inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed.36

Article 1697 of the Civil Code, respondent shall be paid the compensation he had already
earned plus that for 15 days by way of indemnity if he was unjustly dismissed. However, if
respondent left his employment without justifiable reason, he shall forfeit any salary due him and
unpaid for not exceeding 15 days. Given that there is neither dismissal nor abandonment in this
case, none of the party is entitled to
claim any indemnity from the other. Verily, in a case where the employee's failure to work was
occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the burden of economic loss is not
rightfully shifted to the employer; each party must bear his own loss. 37

As found by the Labor Arbiter, the P9,000.00 salary respondent receives a month is
reasonable and in accordance with Article 1689 of the Civil Code. Hence, petitioner may not be
made to pay the respondent wage differentials.
Petitioner is not also liable to the respondent for the payment of holiday pay, 13th month
pay and service incentive leave pay because persons in the personal service of another, such as
family drivers, are exempted from the coverage of such benefits pursuant to Articles 82,38 9439 and
9540 of the Labor Code, and Section 3(d)41 of the implementing rules of Presidential Decree No.
851.

FOOTNOTES:

17
Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 789 (2015); Lopez v. Bodega City,
supra note 13.
18
Valencia v., Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017, 8 I 6
SCRA
144, 156.
21
Alba v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 227734, August 9, 2017, 837 SCRA 52, 61.
30
Functional, Inc. v. Granfil, 676 Phil. 279, 288-289 (2011).
31
Article 141, Chapter III, Book III on Employment of House helpers
of the Labor Code
32
ART. 149. Indemnity for unjust termination of services.
33
Section 4(d) of the Kasambahay Law
34
Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Kasambahay Law
35
Civil Code provisions, particularly Articles1689, 1697 and 1699, Section 1, Chapter 3, Title
VIII, Book IV
36
Article 302 of the Labor Code
37
MZR Industries v. Colambot, 716 Phil. 617,628 (2013); Borja v. Minoza, G.R. No. 218384, July
3,2017, 828 SCRA 647,662.
38
Art. 82. Coverage. -The provisions of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments
and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial
employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for
support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid
by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.
As used herein, "managerial employees" refer to those whose primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision
thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff.
"Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their
duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
39
Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. –
(a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in
retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers;
(b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee
shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and
(c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes: New Year's Day, Maundy Thursday, Good
Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of
November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding
a general election.
40
Art. 95. Right to service incentive leave. –
(a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a
yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay
(b) This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying the benefit herein
provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least five days and those employed in
establishments regularly employing less than ten employees or in establishments exempted from
granting this benefit by the Secretary of Labor and Employment after considering the viability or
financial condition of such establishment.
(c) The grant of benefit in excess of that provided herein shall not be made a subject of
arbitration or any court or administrative action.
41
Sec. 3. Employers covered. - The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:
(d) Employers of household helpers and persons in the personal service of another in
relation to such workers
 Carolina’s Lace Shoppe, Lourdes Ragas and Claudine Mangasing
vs. Gloria Maquilan and Joy Maquilan
G.R. No. 219419, April 10, 2019

DOCTRINES:

"In illegal dismissal_ cases, the fundamental rule is that when an employer interposes the
defense of resignation, the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned
necessarily rests upon the employer."21

The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered to
determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment. If the employer
introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation and
the employee specifically denies the authenticity and due execution of said document, the
employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such document. (Emphasis
and underscoring in the original; citation omitted)22

The basic contents of a valid and effective quitclaim, to wit: In order to prevent disputes
on the validity and enforceability of quitclaims and waivers of employees under Philippine laws,
said agreements should contain the following: 1. A fixed amount as full ancl final compromise
settlement; 2. The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which
the employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed compromise amount; 3. A statement that
the employer has clearly explained to the employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to
the employees - that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their
right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law; and 4. A statement that the
employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents
of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress,
intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person. 29

Under the law, there are no shortcuts in terminating the security of tenure of an employee. 32

FOOTNOTES:

21
Doble, Jr. v. ABB, lnc./Nitin Desai, 810 Phil. 210, 228-229 (2017).
23
Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines
29
Id. at 33.
32
Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, supra note 23.