Pandiman Philippines vs. Marine Mining, GR. 143313, June 21, 2005

PANDIMAN v. MARINE MANNING MNGT CORP.

460 SCRA 418; GARCIA; June 21, 2005

NATURE

Petition for certiorari to review CA decision

FACTS

- Benito Singhid was hired as chief cook on board the vessel MV Sun Richie Five for a term of one year by Fullwin Maritime Limited through its Philippine agent, Marine Manning and Management Corporation. While the said vessel was on its way to Shanghai from Ho Chih Minh City, Benito suffered a heart attack and subsequently died on June 24, 1997.

- Apparently, the vessel and the crew were insured with Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association

Limited (OMMIAL), a Protective and Indemnity Club of which Sun Richie Five Bulkers S.A. is a member. Pandiman Philippines, the petitioner, is the local correspondent of OMMIAL.

- Benito’s widow, Rosita, filed a claim for death benefits with Marine which referred her to Pandiman.

After her submission of the required documentation, Pandiman recommended payment of the death benefits amounting to $79,000. However, payment has not been made.

- Rosita filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter naming Marine, Pandiman, OMMIAL, and Fullwin as respondents. The Arbiter ordered all the respondents, except Pandiman, to jointly and severally pay the widow the death benefits plus legal fees. The NLRC, on appeal by Marine, limited the liable parties to Pandiman and OMMIAL but maintained the money award. The CA sustained the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

1. WON Pandiman may be held liable for the death benefits

2. WON Marine and its foreign principal, Fullwin, should be absolved from the death claim liabilities

HELD

1. NO

- Pandiman is not an insurance agent as defined by Section 3007 of the Insurance Code. In this case, there was no showing that Pndiman in fact negotiated the insurance contract between Sun Richie Five and the insurer OMMIAL. Even, if Pandiman were an agent, payment for claims arising from peril insured against, to which the insurer is liable, is definitely not one of the liabilities of an insurance agent. Thus, there is no legal basis whatsoever for holding petitioner solidarily liable with insurer OMMIAL for the widow’s claim for death benefits. Also, Pandiman is not a party to the insurance contract and hence under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, it is not liable for the obligation arising out of the insurance contract.

2. NO

- Fullwin, as Benito’s principal employer is liable under the employment contract. Marine is also bound by its undertaking pursuant to the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment that “it shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all the claims and liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract, including but not limited to the payment of wages, heath and disability compensation and repatriation”. In other words, both Fullwin and Marine should be held liable for whatever death benefits the widow of Benito may be entitled to.

Disposition The petition is granted and the CA decision is reversed and set aside.