Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 1.

Seventy (70) private security guards of TAPANG SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION assigned to guard the mining area of DAVAO GOLD CORPORATION, filed a complaint against both their direct employer, TAPANG SECURITY, and their indirect employer DAVAO GOLD, when they discovered they could not avail of the benefits of the Social Security System law for the failure of respondents TAPANG and DAVAO GOLD to remit its contributions to the System. By way of answer to the complaint, TAPANG claims that there is no employeremployee relationship, since it has only two (2) office employees whose duties are to monitor their assignment and hours of work and to pay the salaries under the agency contract of the security guards from the funds remitted by DAVAO GOLD, keeping a certain percentage of the amount for office expenses and supervisory fees, the true and real employer being DAVAO GOLD. On the other hand, DAVAO GOLD maintains that it has no employer-employee relationship with TAPANGs security guards assigned to secure its mining area since it has no control over hiring/dismissal of its security guards. TAPANG is a duly licensed security agency and a bona fide independent contractor. 1) Who is deemed an employee for purposes of coverage under the SSS law? 2) Under the above facts whose duty is it to bring the security guards for compulsory coverage pursuant to the SSS law? Discuss.

1) A person is deemed an employee for the purpose of coverage under the Social Security System Law if such person performs services for an employer in which either or both mental and physical efforts are used and who received compensation for such services, where there is an employer-employee relationship. Also, a self-employed person is both an employee and employer at the same time. (Sec. 8(d), Social Security Law) 2) It is the duty of Tang Security Agency Corp. to bring the security guards for compulsory coverage pursuant to SSS law. Said law expressly provides that employees of bona fide independent contractors shall not be deemed employees of the employer engaging the services of said contractors. (Sec. 8(j), Social Security Law)

Alternative Answers: 1) The Social Security Law defines an employer as one who uses the services of another person who is under his orders as regards the employment. Under the facts of the case, it is very clear that it is Davao Gold that has control of the security guards. The security guards are under the orders of Davao Gold as regards their employment, meaning how they perform their work. It could be said that Tapang Security Agency Corp. was acting only like a labor-only contractor and thus, was just an agent of Davao Gold who is the real employer. (Sec. 8(e), Social Security Law)

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993

2) If the company enters into a contract of services with a security agency whereby the

latter hired security guards to work with the said company, then that company becomes the indirect employer of the guards hired by said security agency. The company and the security agency become jointly and severally liable to the security guards. Hence, it is the duty, of both the direct and indirect employer to bring the security for compulsory coverage pursuant to SSS law. 2. The Bantay-Salakay Security Agency (BSSA) employed ten security guards and assigned them to Surot Theater which contracted BSSA for its security needs. On November 3, 1998, the ten security guards of BSSA addressed to the Office of the President, a letter-complaint against their employer for non-compliance with R.A. 6640 providing for an increase in the statutory minimum wage and salary rates of employees and workers in the private sector. The letter was endorsed to the Secretary of Labor who, in turn, referred the matter to the Regional Director of Makunat City in Region XII where the ten security guards reside and where their employer conducts business. The Office of the Regional Director conducted an investigation and called for a hearing with al the parties present. Therefrom, the Regional Director found that there were indeed violations committed by BSSA against the ten security guards, such as underpayment of wages, nonintegration of cost of living allowance, underpayment of 13th-month pay and underpayment of five days incentive pay BSSA and Surot Theater were directed to comply with the labor standards and ordered BSSA and Surot Theater to pay jointly and severally the ten security guards their respective claim of P10,000.00 each or an aggregate amount of P100,000.00 BSSA and Surot Theater filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court seeing to annul the decision of the Regional Director on the ground of grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case. Will the Petition for Certiorari prosper? Decide with reason.

It is to note that the Regional Director assumed jurisdiction before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715 (which is March 21, 1989). Thus applying Art. 128 of the Labor Code, the petition for certiorari will not prosper. Under said article of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives and Regional Directors are duly authorized representatives have visitorial and enforcement powers. Thus, a Regional Director not only has visitorial powers, i.e., to visit the premises of an employer and examine his records, he also has enforcement powers, i.e., based on the findings made in the course of inspection. A Regional Director has the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing compliance with the labor standards, provision of the Labor Code. Thus, he could issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 Therefore, pursuant to Art. 128 of the Labor Code, the Regional Director was only exercising his visitorial and enforcement powers in the case of BSSA and Surot Theater. Thus, he has jurisdiction to do what he did. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Narvasa said that even after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715, the Regional Director has jurisdiction to act on claims exceeding P5, 000.00. The petition for certiorari will prosper under R.A. No. 6517, its provision limiting the power of Regional Directors to money claims exceeding P5, 000.00 per employee, the Regional Director no longer has the poser to act on money claims exceeding P5, 000.00 per employee, even if the same power is exercised pursuant to his visitorial and enforcement power under the Labor Code (Art. 128) where the P5, 000.00 limitation is not found. 3. Mr. Esto Pido is employed as a medical representative of Tapya Laboratories. By the nature of his work, he was allowed to avail companys car loan policy whereby the company advanced the purchase price of the car to be paid back by the employee through monthly deductions from his salary with the company retaining the ownership of the motor vehicle until it shall have been fully paid. Six months later the availment by Mr. Esto Pido of Tapya Laboratories car loan policy, he was dismissed from the service for having participated in an illegal strike. In the Notice of Dismissal sent to him by his employer, he had been directed to either return the car to the company or to settle the remaining balance of the cost of the car. Esto Pido filed an action against Tapya Laboratories for illegal dismissal before the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter, however, upheld the legality of his dismissal hence he appealed his care before the NLRC. In the meantime, Tapya Laboratories filed before the Regional Trial Court a civil suit to recover possession of the car which Esto Pido refused to return and/or settle the remaining balance. The RTC thereafter directed the Deputy Sheriff to take into his custody the motor vehicle from Esto Pido. To counter the order of the RTC, Esto Pido sought temporary restraining order in the NLRC to stop the Tapya Laboratories from collecting their monthly amortization pending final resolution on his appeal in the illegal dismissal case. According to him, had he not been dismissed he would not have defaulted in his amortization. NLRC granted the relief prayed for by Esto Pido by restraining Tapya Laboratories from collecting the monthly amortization pending resolution by the NLRC of the illegal dismissal case. Tapya Laboratories filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging that NLRC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the temporary restraining order. NLRC argues that it has the power to issue an injunction based on Art. 218 of the Labor Code. Decide the controversy with reason.

The NLRC has no power to issue the injunction.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 The powers of NLRC enumerated in Art. 218 of the Labor Code are powers that it could exercise only in connection to labor disputes. The case involving the contract on the car loan entered into by Tapya Laboratories and Esto Pido is not a labor dispute. It is properly under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Thus, the NLRC has no power to issue the temporary restraining order that it issued. 4. In cases involving monetary reward, why does the law require an employer to post a cash or security bond as indispensable condition for the perfection of an appeal?

An appeal stays the execution of a decision or award. Such decision or award could by in the dorm of a monetary award made in favor of an employee. Thus, an appeal will mean that a monetary award will not be executed. To ensure that an appealed monetary ward will be paid to the employee once such monetary ward is affirmed and has become final and executor, the Labor Code requires that the appeal by an employer may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC n the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

5. Julie is a branch manager of Bangko Bangarute National, rising from the ranks through her 21 years of employment. On November 25, 1992, she filed an application for a total of 60 days leave of absence; 15 days with pay (regular annual vacation leave), starting December 1 to 15, and 45 days without pay (personal leave), starting December 16, to January 30, which she submitted to the Vice President for Brach Banking Development, for approval. Unfortunately, the Vice President for Branch Banking Development disapproved her request for personal leave without pay of 15 days. Realizing that the leave granted her (15 days) is not sufficient she filed a motion for reconsideration only by way of formality since she is bent on taking a leave for 60 days, irrespective of whether the bank and management allows her personal leave without pay for 45 days. Without waiting for the decision of the Vice President for the branch banking division, which denied her Motion for Reconsideration, Julie proceeded to take her leave commencing on December 1, 1992. Having exhausted her 60 days leave of absence, she reported back for work but was presented a letter dated Dec.16, 1992, from the Vice President for Brach Banking Division, informing her of her termination effective December 16, 1992. She filed a case for illegal dismissal and prayed for reinstatement and damages against Banko Bangkarute National. 1) Is the severance of Julies employment for a just cause? 2) Is she entitled to reinstatement? Why? 3) Are damages recoverable from Bangko Bangkarute National? Explain.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 1) The severance of Julies employment is for a just cause. She is guilty of willful disobedience of the lawful order of her employer, or her representative in connection with her work. As a branch manager of the Bank, Julie is a high official, who should be a good example to the employees on how lawful orders of the employer are to be observed and obeyed. The refusal of the Bank to grant her request for personal leave without pay for 45 days was not whimsical or arbitrary. There was reason for the refusal, that is, the anticipated heavy workload brought about by the onset of the Christmas season. There was willful disobedience on the part of Julie. Her filing a motion for reconsideration was only by way of formality, since she was bent on taking a leave for 60 days irrespective of whether the Bank management allows her personal leave without pay for 45 days. Alternative Answers: a) There is basis for the Bank to terminate the services of Julie on the ground of its loss of confidence in her. As a branch manager of the Bank, Julie should show concern that the anticipated workload brought about by the onset of the Christmas season is satisfactorily dealt with by the Bank. Yet, in spite of Julie being told about this problem, she was still bent on taking a leave for 60 days irrespective of whether the Bank allows her personal leave without pay for 45 days. b) Basically, the problem is entitlement to personal leave of 45 days on the part of the employee. If she is entitled by reason of company regulations or company practice, the employer being a bank, the denial may have been arbitrary and is invalid. If so, her dismissal is without a just cause, for availment of a right cannot be ground for discipline. She would therefore be entitled to reinstatement. However, no damages should be due from the bank; unless it is clear that it had ratified the action taken by the bank, vice-president. He should shoulder the damages instead.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 On the other hand, if the claim of personal leave is entirely without legal basis, then the employee was AWOL for 45 days which is serious misconduct, hence, a just cause for dismissal. Even then, in the light of her long service plus a valid justification for personal leave (such as urgent medical treatment aboard), the dismissal would be for insufficient cause and would be too harsh, hence, she would be entitled to reinstatement without back wages. 2) She is not entitled to reinstatement because her dismissal was legal, it being for just cause.

Alternative Answers: a) She would be entitled to reinstatement since her dismissal is considered too harsh a penalty for the offense she committed. b) Julie is not entitled to reinstatement. The strained relations rule applies in this case. Julie, a branch manager of the bank, occupies a highly responsible and confidential position, which requires a consistent level of confidence.
3) She cannot claim damages from the Bank. There is no basis for a claim damages.

It may be noted that she was not given the required due process by the Bank before her dismissal. She is therefore entitled to an indemnity of 1,000. 6. Borloloy & co. is engaged in the construction business which hired the services of Ispongklong as mason and Agaton as carpenter in 1977. Everytime their services are needed, Ispongklong and Agaton are issued notices of employment by Borloloy & Co. in the following tenor: This is to inform you that you have been hired at Lahar Bldg., as mason and carpenter respectively at a monthly salary/daily or hourly of 12.40. Your employment shall be deemed automatically terminated either at the completion of the project or upon the completion of the work requiring your respective services to start May 12, 1997. ACCEPTED ISPONGKLONG AGATON Such an arrangement continued wherein both Agaton and Ispongklong became members of a work pool from where Borloloy & Co. draws manpower to work on various projects. After each project they have been assigned to is completed, Borloloy & Co. reported the names of Ispongklong and Agaton to the Social Security System for registration.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 In 1987 (or after ten years of service) they received a notice from Borloloy & Co. informing them that their services are no longer needed. Ispongklong and Agaton immediately filed a case for illegal dismissal alleging that they are regular and permanent workers of Borloloy & Co. having worked for it for ten (10) years hence prayed for reinstatement and back wages. Borloloy & Co. on the other hand, claims that Agaton and Ispongklong are project employees whereby their employment is automatically terminated either at the completion of the phase of work requiring their respective service as stated in their respective Notice of Employment the sample test which is quoted above. If you are the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how will you decide the controversy? As Labor Arbiter, I will promulgate a decision finding the dismissal of Agaton and Ispongklong illegal. Ispongklong and Agaton ceased to be project employees when they became members of a workpool from where their employer draws manpower to work on various projects. Thus, as regular employees, they can be terminated only if there is just cause or otherwise authorized by law. (Art. 280, Labor Code) 7. What is the requirement in order that a compromise agreement involving labor standards cases be considered duly executed? For a compromise agreement involving labor standards cases to be considered duly executed, such compromise agreement should be voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with assistance of the Bureau of Labor Relations or the regional office of the Department of Labor and Employment. (Art. 227, Labor Code) 8. Mer Alco is a staff engineer of Vetsin Factory, Inc., since September 1980. In 1982, Batas Pambansa 73, otherwise known as The Omnibus Energy Conservation Law, was passed, requiring establishments such as Vetsin Factory Inc. to appoint an employee as its energy Manager whose duties consist of evaluating energy conservation activities of the company, submitting energy consumption reports to the Department of Energy and coordinating with the said department concerning utility efficiency of the establishment. Pursuant to the requirement of the Omnibus Energy Conservation Law, Mer Alco was appointed by Vetsin Factory Inc. as Energy Manager. Except for the above duties enjoined by law to be performed by the Energy Manager Alco is practically doing the same responsibility attached to the position of a staff engineer. For three (3) years, Mer Alco performed the role of an Energy Manager receiving the same salary as that received by him when he was still a Staff Engineer, In 1986, Mer Alco filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission for underpayment of salary for three (3) years claiming that his promotion from Staff Engineer to Energy Manager necessarily entitled him to a corresponding salary increase even though B.P. Blg. 73 (Omnibus Energy Conservation Law) did not provide for the salary or increase in salary of the employee to be appointed as Energy Manager, Mer Alco invoked the principle that doubts in the interpretation and implementation of Labor Laws should be resolved in favor of labor.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 The Labor Arbiter sustained Engineer Mer Alcos position and ordered Vetsin Factory Inc. to increase his salary commensurate to the position he was appointed and promoted to. Write a dissenting opinion on the decision of the Labor Arbiter upholding Mer Alcos position that his salary should be correspondingly raised by reason of his promotion as well as in sustaining the applicability of the principle that interpretation and implementation of Labor Laws should be resolved in favor of labor. I dissent. The decision of the Labor Arbiter ordering Vetsin Factory Inc. to increase the salary of Mer Alco commensurate to the position he was appointed and promoted to has no basis whatsoever. There is no provision in B.P. Blg. 73 making it the legal obligation of an employer to increase the salary of his employee one the latter is made an Energy Manager pursuant to B.P. Blg. 73. The determination of the salary of an employee is managements prerogative. In the case of Vetsin Factory, Inc., the employer has not decided to give an increase to Mer Alco. The employer cannot be compelled to make such decision. As to the application of the principle that doubts in the interpretation and implementation of Labor Laws should be resolved in favor of labor, the principle cannot be invoked. There is no labor law that needs to be interpreted. Except when a law like a Minimum Wage Law fixes what minimum wages are to be paid by employers or on all law like the Salary Standardization Law for government employees which fixes the compensation of the employees occupying certain positions. It is the employer who unilaterally determines what the compensation to give to his employees. Alternative Answer: The Labor Arbiters decision for increase in the salary of Mer Alco is without legal basis. Labor Arbiters have no power of compulsory arbitration, only authority to adjudicate claims of workers which are founded upon contract or upon awards, or upon provisions of law granting specific. The principle relied upon applies only to the interpretation of a law, contract or other legal acts mandating payment of benefits. In this case, the claim to an increase has no basis in law, in contract or in company practice. 9. Pedro Sisid is a seaman who was employed in 1990 by Kuhol Ocean Transport. In May 1993, he was discharged and correspondingly paid vacation pay, terminal pay and overtime pay for the number of hours he actually rendered service in excess of his eight (8) working hours a day. Pedro Sisid, however is dissatisfied with his overtime pay contending that he is on board the vessel 24 hours a day or even beyond his eight (8) working hours

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 which circumstance renders him on call whenever his service is needed. Therefore, he insists that he be paid 16 hours a day by way of overtime. Is the contention of seamen Pedro Sisid tenable? Why?
No, the contention of seaman Sisid is not tenable.

The fact that he is on board the vessel 24 hours a day does not mean that beyond his eight working hours, he could be also considered as working because he is on call, and thus, is entitled to overtime pay. Because he is a seaman, this circumstance means he is on board his vessel while at sea. But he is not thereby on call as to be entitled to overtime pay because when it is not his working time, he can, if he chooses to do so, use said non-working time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose. Alternative Answer: No, there being a record of actual overtime services rendered. An estimated period of overtime is valid as a basis for payment of overtime, only in a case where overtime services are actually being rendered regularly but no records of the hours were kept. 10. How much attorneys fees may a lawyer assess a culpable party in cases of unlawful withholding of wages? In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount of wages recovered. (Art. 111, Labor Code) 11. What matters may be taken up by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) En Banc?
The NLRC shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and

regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before any of its divisions and regional branches and formulating policies affecting its administration and operations. (Art. 213, Labor Code) 12. Johnny Torres is an employee of M.C.U. hospital having worked therein as janitor for 12 years. Sometime in March 1993, he was suspected of conniving with some medical students in the theft of laboratory equipment for which reason, the management of M.C.U. Hospital ordered his employment terminated for loss of confidence. Johnny Torres filed before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a case of illegal dismissal against the hospital. After hearing, the Labor Arbiter cleared Johnny Torres of any involvement in the theft and rendered a decision declaring the order of dismissal illegal thereby ordering the hospital to reinstate Johnny Torres to his former position and to pay him full back wages, which he would have received, were it not for the illegal dismissal.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 MCU Hospital filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion in ordering a reinstatement which is no longer possible under the stained relations principle, a hostility that developed between the parties as a result of the litigation. Is the legal argument poised by MCU Hospital tenable? The legal argument poised by MCY Hospital is not tenable. An employer cannot use strained relation as a valid reason for not reinstating an employee who has been illegally dismissed, if such strained relations arose from a worker filing a case of illegal dismissal against his employer. When he filed the case, the employee was only asserting his constitutional right to security of tenure. Alternative Answer: The principle of strained relations does not apply in this case, Johnny Torres a janitor, does not occupy a confidential or responsible position. The rule cannot be applied universally. Otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible simply because some hostility is engendered between the parties as a result of ligation. 13. In what manner do the labor laws show its solicitous compassionate policy towards the working man by providing that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of labor laws including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor? Thus, among others, the Constitution recognizes that the workers are entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage. Labor laws should be liberally interpreted to ensure that the above rights are given to workers. Many times, an employee commits an offense that is a valid ground for disciplinary action but law and jurisprudence do not automatically provide for the termination of the guilty employee because termination may be too harsh a penalty, his employment may, more often than not, be the sole source of his means of livelihood. (Art. 4 Labor Code; Art. XIII, Sec. 3 Constitution) 14. Which takes precedence in conflicts arising between employers MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE and the employees right to security of tenure? Why? The employees right to security of tenure takes precedence over the employers management prerogative includes the right to terminate the services of an employee but this management prerogative is limited by the Labor Code which provides that the employer can terminate an employee only for a just cause or when authorized by law. This limitation on management prerogative is because no less than the Constitution recognizes and guarantees an employees right to security of tenure. (Art. 279, Labor Code; Art XIII, Sec. 3, Constitution) 15. Mr. X was hired by Y Company on probation for six months as general utility worker. On the expiration of the probationary period, Mr. X was informed by Y Co. that his work was unsatisfactory and failed to meet the required standard. To give him a chance to improve his performance, Y Co. instead of terminating Mr. Xs services, extended, with

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 X's written consent, the probation period for another three months. This extension notwithstanding, his performance did not improve, on account of which, Y Co. terminated Mr. Xs services at the end of the extended period, Mr. X filed a case for illegal dismissal contending that he was already regular at the time of his dismissal pursuant to Art. 281 of the Labor Code, the particular portion of which provides: xxx. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Therefore, he could not have been lawfully dismissed for failure to meet company standards as a probationary worker. Decide with reason. Mr. X could not argue that because his probationary period was extended beyond six months he was now a regular employee and thus could no longer be terminated except for just cause or when authorized by law. The fact is that the probationary period of Mr. X was extended beyond six months with his consent. It was to give him an opportunity to improve his performance. Thus, it was legal for Y Company to terminate Mr. X for his failure to met company standard as a probationary worker. The Labor Code provides that probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months. But the Supreme Court has ruled that said probationary period could be extended with the consent of the probationary employee to give him an opportunity to improve his performance. (Art. 281, Labor Code) 16. Jose and Pedro were utility workers employed by Yellow Farms, Inc. On 13 January 1984, they were picked up by the companys guards in connection with the theft of polyethylene bags belonging to the company. They were detained at the Baybay Municipal Jail. Initial investigation of the police yielded no prima facie case against them, resulting in their release. However, after further investigation, an amended complaint was formally filed against them and two others, charging them with theft before the Municipal Court. The Company terminated Jose and Pedro due to loss of confidence. Consequently, the two filed a complaint of illegal dismissal on the ground that their dismissal based on the criminal complaint did not justify their termination. Is the filing of the criminal complaint against Jose and Pedro sufficient ground for their termination? What is the quantum of proof necessary to terminate an employee for loss of confidence? What if the criminal complaint was dismissed on the ground of reasonable doubt?
The mere filing of the criminal complaint against Jose and Pedro would not be

sufficient ground for their termination, because while it is true that the criminal complaint could be properly filed only if there was a prima facie case against said employees, this fact does not in turn automatically mean that there is already substantial evidence to prove that there is just cause for their termination.

Dilidili-Tabirara, Jamielyn B. 1993 The quantum of evidence necessary to terminate an employee for loss of confidence is that substantial evidence. Even if the criminal complaint was dismissed on the ground of reasonable doubt, Jose and Pedro could still be dismissed as long as there is substantial evidence to prove that they have committed acts that could be an objective basis for loss of confidence. Alternative Answer: Yes, the filing of a criminal complaint is sufficient ground since such complaint is founded upon prima facie evidence of their guilt of theft. In dismissal for loss of confidence, it is sufficient if there is substantial evidence to believe that the employee is guilty of theft. This standard is equivalent to a prima facie finding of guilt in criminal procedure. Mere dismissal on the ground that proof beyond reasonable doubt was adduced, will not entitle the employees to reinstatement. In criminal law, the higher standard will not necessarily negative the existence of the lower standard of proof of substantial evidence of guilt. 17. Jerome Marcelo was hired as 4th Engineer by Masipag Shipping Services, Inc. for and in behalf of Captains Maritime Co., Ltd., to work aboard the M/V White Cloud for a period of one year. Marcelo reported for duty abroad the vessel on July 13, 1987. On January 16, 1988 at about 3:00 p.m. while the vessel was docked alongside Pier 39, San Francisco, U.S.A., Marcelo arrived and boarded the ship from shore visibly drunk. He went to the mess hall and took a fire axe and challenged those eating therein. He was pacified by his shipmates who led to his cabin. However, later he went out of his cabin and proceeded to the mess hall. He became violent. He smashed and threw a cup at the head of an oiler Renato Pobre touched his head and noticed blood. This infuriated Pobre which lead to a fight between the two. After the shipmates broke the fight, Marcelo was taken to the hospital where he passed away from January 17, 1988. Pobre was arrested by the American authorities and jailed in San Francisco. On October 26, 1988, the wife of Marcelo filed a complaint against Masipag and Captains with POEA for payment of death benefits, burial expenses unpaid salaries on board and overtime pays with damages. Are Masipag and Captains liable for the death benefits of seaman Marcelo?
Masipag and Captains are not liable for the death benefits of seamen Marcelo because

his death was brought about by his wilful intention to injure or kill another.