AGILE MARITIME RESOURCES, INC., et al. v.

APOLINARIO N. SIADOR
G.R. No. 191034, 1 October 2014, SECOND DIVISION, (Brion, J.)

Since the seafarer’s heir has initially discharged his burden of proof, the employer, in order
to avoid liability, must similarly establish their defense. If the employer is able to establish its
defense by substantial evidence, the burden now rests on the seafarer’s heir to overcome the
employer’s defense. In other words, the burden of evidence now shifts to the seafarer’s heirs.

Dennis Siador was an ordinary seaman on board the vessel LNG Aries.
Apolinario Siador, Dennis’ father, was claiming death benefits from Pronav Ship
Management, Inc. and its local manning agent, Agile Maritime Resources (Agile) for
claiming thatDennis fell from the vessel and died in the high seas. The latter’s body
was never recovered. Apolinario claims that Dennis was suffering with mental
disability days prior to the incident. Thus, his act of jumping overboard cannot be
considered as willful.

Agile interposed the defense that Dennis willfully took his life by jumping
overboard. A life ring was immediately thrown into the water by the vessel’s crew,
but Rolando Moreno, the fitter, saw Dennis floating on his back and making no
efforts to swim towards the life ring. Under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), the employer is not
liable for the compensation if the death is directly attributable to the seafarer. Both
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the complaint finding that substantial
evidence exists to support that Dennis, saddled by heavy personal and psychological
problems, took his own life by jumping overboard. The Court of Appeals reversed
NLRC’s decision finding the latter gravely abused its discretion in holding that
substantial evidence exists to support its conclusion that Dennis willfully took his
life.

ISSUE:

Was Agile able to prove by substantial evidence that Dennis willfully took
his life by jumping overboard thus shifting the burden on Siador to prove by
substantial evidence that Dennis was insane at the time of incident?

RULING:

Yes. As a claimant for death benefits, Apolinario has the burden of proving
that the seafarer’s death (1) is work-related; and (2) happened during the term of the
employment contract. Unarguably, Apolinario has discharged this burden of proof.
Since Apolinario has initially discharged his burden of proof, Agile,et. al., in order to
avoid liability, must similarly establish their defense. If they are able to establish their
defense by substantial evidence, the burden now rests on Apolinario to overcome
the employer’s defense. In other words, the burden of evidence now shifts to the

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

seafarer’s heirs. Apolinario has to prove by substantial evidence that Dennis may be
insane at the time he took his life.

Since the POEA-SEC requires the employer to prove not only that the
death is directly attributable to the seafarer himself but also that the seafarer willfully
caused his death, evidence of insanity or mental sickness may be presented to negate
the requirement of willfulness as a matter of counter-defense. Since the willfulness
may be inferred from the physical act itself of the seafarer (his jump into the open
sea), the insanity or mental illness required to be proven must be one that deprived
him of the full control of his senses. His strange behavior cannot be the basis for a
finding of grave abuse of discretion because portions of the Crewmembers’
Statement itself rendered the basis for a finding of insanity insufficient. A few hours
before the accident, Filipino crew members approached Dennis to ask him if
anything was wrong with him and Dennis simply replied that everything was in
order. No proof was ever adduced as well showing that whatever personal problems
Dennis had were enough to negate the voluntariness he showed in stepping
overboard. The Court finds that Agile, et. al., sufficiently established that Dennis
willfully caused his death while Siador's evidence fell short of substantial evidence to
establish its counter-defense of insanity.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 HYPTE R. AUJERO v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 193484, 18 January 2012, SECOND DIVISION (Perez, J.)

Absent any evidence that any of the vices of consent is present, the quitclaim executed by a party constitutes a
valid and binding agreement.

Petitioner Hypte Aujero was the Vice President of respondent company Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat). After 34 years, he applied for an early retirement
which was approved. This entitled Aujero to receive his retirement benefits at a rate equivalent to one
and a half of his monthly salary for every year of service.
Aujero subsequently executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim in Philcomsat’s favor
following his receipt from the latter of a check in the amount of P9,439,327.91. After 3 years, Aujero
filed a complaint for unpaid retirement benefits claiming that the actual amount of his retirement pay
is P14,015,055.00. Aujero contends that the significantly deficient amount he previously received was
more than an enough reason to declare his quitclaim null and void. Aujero further claimed that he had
no choice but to accept the lesser amount as he was in dire need of money.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Aujero and directed Philcomsat to pay the balance
of his retirement pay. The LA maintained that Philcomsat failed to substantiate its claim that the
amount received by Aujero was a product of negotiations between the parties. On appeal, the National
Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) reversed the decision of the LA and decided in favor of
Philcomsat. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Whether the quitclaim executed by the petitioner in Philcomsat’s favor is valid, thereby
foreclosing his right to institute any claim against Philcomsat

HELD:
Petition GRANTED.
While the law looks with disfavor upon releases and quitclaims by employees who are inveigled
or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities,
a legitimate waiver representing a voluntary settlement of a laborer's claims should be respected by
the courts as the law between the parties. Considering Aujero’s claim of fraud and bad faith against
Philcomsat to be unsubstantiated, the Court finds the quitclaim in dispute to be legitimate waiver.
That Aujero was all set to return to his hometown and was in dire need of money would
likewise not qualify as undue pressure sufficient to invalidate the quitclaim. Dire necessity may be an
acceptable ground to annul quitclaims if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee

UST Law Review, Vol. LVII No. 1, November 2012

was tricked into accepting it, but is not an acceptable ground for annulling the release when it is not
shown that the employee has been forced to execute it. While it is the Court’s duty to prevent the
exploitation of employees, it also behooves this Court to protect the sanctity of contracts that do not
contravene our laws.
Aujero’s educational background and employment stature render it improbable that he was
pressured, intimidated or inveigled into signing the subject quitclaim. The Court cannot permit the
petitioner to relieve himself from the consequences of his act, when his knowledge and understanding
thereof is expected. Also, the period of time that Aujero allowed to lapse before filing a complaint to
recover the supposed deficiency in his retirement pay clouds his motives, leading to the reasonable
conclusion that his claim of being aggrieved is a mere afterthought, if not a mere pretention.

UST Law Review, Vol. LVII No. 1, November 2012