Pandiman v. Marine Manning Management Corp.

and Singhid

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Pandiman Philippines, Inc. (PPI) local correspondent of OMMIAL
Marine Manning and Management Corp. (MMMC) Respondent; Contractor
Rosita Singhid Respondent; wife of Benito
Benito Singhid deceased husband of Rosita
Fullwin Maritime Limited (Fullwin) Foreign Principal of MMMC
Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association, Ltd. (OMMIAL) insured the vessel
and the crew
MV Sun Richie Five Bulkers S.A. owner of the vessel MV Sun Richie Five

FACTS
Benito was hired by Fullwin, through its local agent, MMMC, as chief cook on board
the vessel MV Sun Richie Five for a term of twelve (12) months.
o The vessel and its crew were insured with OMMIAL which transacted
business in the Philippines through its local correspondent PPI.
While the vessel was on its way to Shanghai from Ho Chih Minh, Benito suffered a
heart attack, and subsequently died on June 24, 1997.
o Rosita filed a claim for death benefits with MMMC, which, however, referred
her to PPI. Upon Rosita's submission of all the required documents, PPI
approved the claim and recommended payment in the amount of $79,000.00.
But, despite said recommendation, Rosita's death claims remained unpaid.
Rosita filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for recovery of death benefits. LA:
dismissed the complaint insofar as PPI is concerned.
NLRC: reversed and absolved MMMC from any liability and instead held PPI and
OMMIAL liable for Rosita's claim.
CA: affirmed the findings of the NLRC. It held PPI liable for Rosita's death claims on
the postulate that PPI is an insurance agent, a term defined and understood under
Section 3001 of the Insurance Code.
PPI claims that it is not an insurance agent but a mere local correspondent of the
ONMIAL. Thus, PPI maintains that even if OMMIAL, as insurer of Sun Richie Five, is
held principally liable to Rosita for her husband's death benefits, PPI cannot be
held solidarily liable together with ONMIAL.

ISSUE + RULING
May PPI be held liable for Rosita's claim for death benefits? NO.

1
Section 300. Any person who for compensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of any insurance company
transmits for a person other than himself an application for a policy or contract of insurance to or from such company or
offers or assumes to act in the negotiating of such insurance shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section
and shall thereby become liable to all the duties, requirements, liabilities and penalties to which an insurance agent is
subject.
1
 The vessel and its crew were covered by a "Class 1 - Protection and Indemnity"
agreement as embodied in the Certificate of Entry issued by OMMIAL. In this
agreement, which is actually an insurance contract, the Insurance Code is the
governing law.
o Also, it states that OMMIAL is the insurer, the vessel owner is the insured,
and Rosita, as widow and heir of a crew, is a beneficiary.
o There is nothing in the records to show that the insurance contract in this
case was in fact negotiated between the insured Sun Richie Five and the
insurer OMMIAL, through PPI as insurance agent under Sec. 300 of the
Insurance Code. NLRC merely relied on PPIs reference to OMMIAL as its
"principal".
o Such "reference" will not and cannot vary the definition of what an insurance
agent actually is under the law, nor can it automatically turn petitioner into
one, thereby becoming correspondingly liable to all the duties, requirements,
liabilities and penalties to which an insurance agent is subject to. Thus, PPI
is not an insurance agent and cannot be held liable to Rositas claims.
In addition to those discussed, payment for claims arising from the peril insured
against, to which the insurer is liable, is not a liability of an insurance agent. Also,
the insurance contract between the insurer and the insured, under Art. 1311 of the
Civil Code, is binding only upon the parties (and their assigns and heirs).
o PPI is not a party to the insurance contract. Hence, no liability or obligation
arising therefrom, may be imposed upon it.

Should MMMC and Fullwin be absolved from death claims? NO.

Benito was employed by Fullwin through its manning agency, MMMC. He died during
the effectivity of their employment contract while on board the vessel MV Sun
Richie Five.
o Fullwin, as the principal employer, is liable under the same employment
contract. For its part, MMMC is bound by its undertaking pursuant to the
Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment (1991) that the
manning applicants shall assume joint and solidary liability with the
employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in connection with the
implementation of the contract, including but not limited to payment of
wages, health and disability compensation and repatriation.
Hence, MMMC is jointly and solidarily liable with its foreign principal Fullwin, for
whatever death benefits Benito's widow is entitled to under Benito's employment
contract.