Scribd
Upload
178 views1 page

Lapid vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Phil Hanse Ship Agency, Et. Al.

1) Ariel Lapid, an employee of Phil Hanse Ship Agency, was found dead in Canada where he had been working for a year on a ship. The coroner reported his death was suicide but his body showed injuries inconsistent with suicide. 2) Ariel's mother filed a claim for death benefits, which was denied on appeal despite evidence contradicting suicide. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding the employer did not prove the death was due to Ariel's actions. It ordered a remand to determine death benefits, as the employer did not adequately investigate the cause of death.

Uploaded by

Ford Osip
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
178 views1 page

Lapid vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Phil Hanse Ship Agency, Et. Al.

1) Ariel Lapid, an employee of Phil Hanse Ship Agency, was found dead in Canada where he had been working for a year on a ship. The coroner reported his death was suicide but his body showed injuries inconsistent with suicide. 2) Ariel's mother filed a claim for death benefits, which was denied on appeal despite evidence contradicting suicide. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding the employer did not prove the death was due to Ariel's actions. It ordered a remand to determine death benefits, as the employer did not adequately investigate the cause of death.

Uploaded by

Ford Osip
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Lapid vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Phil Hanse Ship Agency, et. al.

,
306 SCRA 349, GR No. 117518, April 29, 1999
FACTS:
Respondent Phil Hans employed petitioners son, Ariel, to be a steward on board M/V Cast Muskox in
Canada. Ariel left for the said country in September 1990 and was supposed to come home in August
1991 upon the termination of the 1-year period of employment contract. However, his lifeless body was
found hanging by the neck from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse in Quebec, Canada on August
13, 1991. After examining the corpse, the coroner reported that the causer of death was asphyxiation
by hanging and, therefore, the circumstances of death was following self-destruction. Based on the
said report, Phil Hanse informed petitioner that Ariel committed suicide.
When the remains arrived in Manila on August 29, 1991, petitioner noticed immediately that it bore
several bruises so petitioner sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and
submitted the cadaver for post mortem examination. The NBI reported that the body vore abrasions on
the elbow, contusions on the forehead, hematoma and ligature marks on the neck, all of which are
inconsistent with the suicide earlier reported. Petitioner then filed a claim with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA) asserting that Ariel was a victim of foul play abroad in the course of his
overseas employment. However, the POEA Administrator ruled that the pieces of evidence adduced
substantially proved that suicide was committed just as what the coroner reported. On appeal, the
NLRC affirmed the assailed decision based on a conclusion that since Ariels $2,000.00 remained in tact
in his wallet when his body was found and that based on the coroners report, Ariel committed suicide
and there was no foul play at all.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to death benefits under Sec. 6(6), Part II of the POEA Standard
Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen
COURT RULING:
Finding that the coroners report to be incomplete, the Phil Hanses evidence to be lean, frail and far
from convincing, and that Phil Hanse failed to ascertain the circumstances of Ariels death, the
Supreme Court reversed the NLRCs decision and ordered the remand of the case to the POEA for
computation of death benefits.
It is the employers duty to ascertain the circumstances surrounding its employees death while the
employee was on the course of his work.
Under Section 6 (6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, if the
injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seaman was because of his own doing, no compensation
shall be payable.
The employer must prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is attributable to the seaman,
in order for the employer to evade any liability for death benefits.

You might also like