John Carlo T.

Pajo

[3] Spouses Dalen v. Mitsui OSK Lines

G.R. No. 194403 July 24, 2019

FACTS: The petitioners of this case are the heirs of the deceased crew men of MV Sea Prospect who died
while in transit from Indonesia to Okinawa, Japan. The crew men, while on transit to Japan to deliver
nickle-ore, experience inclement weather. The vessel developed a list between 10 and 15 degrees to
starboard but was repaired by the crew men of the vessel. However, while nearing Okinawa, Japan to
seek refuge, the vessel listed again 3 to 5 degrees then to 90 degrees, taking water in the bridge, the
engine stopped, and the electric power being cut. After 30 minutes, MV Sea Prospect sunk, drowning 10
crew members.
The petitioners filed for damages and attorney’s fees against Mitsui OSK, a non-resident
corporation, not doing business in the Philippines, was the charterer of MV Sea Prospect while Diamond
Camella, S.A., another non-resident corporation, not doing business in the Philippines, and of
Panamanian registry is the registered owner of the vessel, and Magsaysay Maritime Corporation
(Magsaysay), the manning agents of the respondents in the Philippines who hired the deceased crew
members of the vessel.
Respondents alleged that petitioners and beneficiaries of the deceased seafarers received full
payment of death benefits based on their employment contract and Collective Bargaining Agreement.
However, petitioners allegedly demanded further compensation in connection with the sinking of the
vessel and threatened that an action arising from tort would be commenced in Panama should their
demand be unheeded. Hence, respondence filed before RTC Manila for Petition for Declaratory Relief
and Approval of the Compromise/Settlement Agreement against petitioners. Then, petitioners filed the
complaint for damages against respondents before the Admiralty Court of Panama. Respondent
converted the petition for declaratory relief into an ordinary civil action for breach of contract and
damages and prayed for the approval of the settlement agreement.
Petitions for claim of damages were also filled in the courts of Panama and the Labor Arbiter
(LA) by the petitioners. These cases were however dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction and the
corporations were not properly summoned because the corporations are not in the Philippines and not
doing business in the Philippines. Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) but was dismissed saying that the claim, even if based on tort was already included
in the quitclaims executed in favor of the respondents. Petitioners filed Petition for Certiorari to the CA
which was dismissed reiterating the ruling of the LA and the NLRC. Thereafter, petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration which was also denied via a Resolution. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the claim for damages based on tort filed by petitioners before the LA was proper?

RULING: No, such claim falls outside of the area of competence or the LA and the NLRC. The instant
petition is denied.

RATIO: Here, the petitioners claim for damages is grounded on respondent’s gross negligence which
caused the sinking of the vessel and the death of the crew men. Based on this, the subject matter of the
complaint is for damages arising from quasi-delict, which is within the ambit of the regular court’s
jurisdiction.
To sustain a claim of liability under the quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (1)
damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for
whose acts he must respond; (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of
the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
John Carlo T. Pajo

Here, petitioners argue that respondents are duty bound to exercise due diligence required by
law to ensure the safety of the crew and all the passengers therein. It was further averred that the
negligence on the part of the respondents is quite apparent when they allowed the vessel to load and
transport wet cargo. For failure therefore to exercise extra ordinary diligence required of them, the
respondents must be held liable for damages to the surviving heirs of the deceased crew members.
Notwithstanding the contractual relation between the parties, the act of respondents is a quasi-delict
and not a mere breach of contract. Where the resolution of the dispute requires expertise, not in labor
management relations nor in wage structures and other terms and conditions of employment, but
rather in the application of the general civil law.

COMMENTS: The SC discusses the power of the Labor Arbiter having no jurisdiction over tort cases. To
note, the SC was discussing whether the claim for damages by the petitioners arises from the employer-
employee relationship or not. With that issue, the SC formulated the “reasonable casual connection
rule” where in if there is a reasonable connection between the claim asserted and the employer-
employee relations. Here, the SC held that the petitioner’s claim for damages is grounded on
respondents’ gross negligence which cause the sinking of the vessel.
Carefully analyzing the claims of the petitioners, the SC held the subject matter of the complaint
is one of claim for damages arising from quasi-delict, which is within the ambient powers of the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.
In this case, SC discussed Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides, “Whoever by act or omission
causes damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called quasi-delict.” Here, the SC emphasized that to claim liability under quasi-delict the
elements of damages suffered by the plaintiff, fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other for
whose acts he must respond, and the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of
the defendant and the damages incurred by plaintiff.
To note, the SC noted the argument of the petitioners that respondents are duty bound to
exercise due diligence required by law to ensure the safety of the crew. Furthermore, they argue the act
of respondents is a quasi-delict and not a mere breach of contract. On further understanding,
petitioners should be clear on their basis of claim of damages. If the source of claim is properly stated
and the suit is properly filed in the competent court, the SC may over turned the decision in favor of the
petitioners.