Burden of proof vs. burden of evidence

G.R. No. 191034               October 1, 2014

AGILE MARITIME RESOURCES INC., ATTY. IMELDA LIM BARCELONA and PRONA V SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
APOLINARIO N. SIADOR, Respondent.

"x x x.

Substantive considerations

a. There was substantial evidence to prove that Dennis’ death was directly attributable to his own action

In the present case, the LA, NLRC and the CA28 uniformly found that Dennis jumped from the ship. Additionally, the petitioners cited the following personal circumstances that may have driven Dennis to do what he did: his dysfunctional family; the death of his mother after a lingering illness; the bitter parting withhis father whom he had not seen for three (3)29 after he and his two (2) brothers were thrown out from their home in Talisay, Cebu; and his disappointment with his sister whose medical education he supported, only to learn that she got married and did not even invite him to the wedding.30

Based on these facts and the legal presumption of sanity, we conclude that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it affirmed the LA’s dismissal of the complaint; we hold that the seafarer’s death was due to his willful act, asthe employer posited and proved.

Two analogous cases may be cited insupport of this conclusion. In Great Southern Maritime Services Corp. v. Leonila Surigao,31 the seafarer was found dead inside the bathroom of his hospital room with a belt tied around his neck. In denying the claim for death benefits, the Court ruled that substantial evidence suffices for the employer to show that the seafarer committed suicide even if there was no eyewitness to its commission and the possibility of a contrary conclusion existed. In Crewlink, Inc. v. Teringtering,32 the seafarer, who had already previously jumped in the open sea, jumped again, resulting in his death due to drowning. In holding that it was a caseof suicide, the Court ruled that the employer "was able to substantially prove that [the seafarer’s] death was attributable to his deliberate act of killing himself by jumping into the sea."

With the company’s discharge of the burden to prove its defense, the burden of evidence shifted to Apolinario to rebut the petitioners’ case. In other words, Apolinario has to prove by substantial evidence that Dennis may be insane atthe time he took his life.

By holding that willfulness "could not be presumed" from Dennis’ act of jumping overboard, we observe that the CA cluttered its appreciation of the evidence, contrary to the rules on the burden of proof and the burden of evidence that must be observed since the issue before the CA was not the intrinsic correctness of the NLRC’s ruling but the existence of grave abuse of discretion. As the LA and the NLRC found, the petitioners have discharged by substantial evidence the burden ofproving willfulness through the cumulative consideration of the following circumstances: 1. Just a few hours before the incident, Filipino crew members spoke with Dennis in his cabin and asked him if there was anything wrong with his state of health; Dennis replied that everything was in order.

2. After Dennis jumped from the ship, he was seen calmly floating on his back and was not swimming towards the life ring or the lifeboat while floating on the ocean.

3. Even the labor federation to which Dennis belonged, agreed that Dennis committed suicide.

Since the burden of evidence was shifted to Apolinario, the reversal of the NLRC’s ruling could only be premised on Apolinario’s successful proof by substantial evidence of Dennis’ insanity or mental illness. The CA, however, instead of proceeding in this manner, imposed the burden of evidence on the petitioners on the ground that "willfulness x x x could not be presumed when[Dennis] jumped overboard."

By doing so, the CA acted as if the petition before it was part of an appellate process rather than an independent civil action of certiorari that is limited to questions of grave abuse of discretion. Properly, the question for the CA to answer was whether Apolinario established by substantial evidence his claim of insanity.

x x x."