INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v MORADAS

January 15, 2014 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Due Process
PETITIONER: INC Shipmanagement, Inc., Captain Sigfredo Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation
Limited
RESPONDENT: Alexander Moradas
SUMMARY: Moradas was a seaman of the petitioners vessel. He suffered deep burns while in the vessel. He
claimed that it was due to an explosion rendering him permanently incapable of working. He demanded
payment of his full disability benefits. Petitioners claimed that his injury was self-inflicted and presented
affidavits and statements by vessel's officers and crew members to support their claim. SC affirmed NLRC,
ruling that there was substantial evidence to establish that the injury of respondent was self-inflicted.
DOCTRINE: One of the guidelines in Ang Tibay is that there be substantial evidence. In this case, petitioners
were able to establish substantial evidence that respondents injury was directly attributable to him.
FACTS:
Respondent Moradas was employed as a wiper for
the vessel MV Commander by petitioner INC
Shipmanagement. Respondent suffered deep burns
when certain chemicals splashed all over his body
because of an explosion. Claiming that the burns
rendered him permanently incapable of working
again as a seaman, he demanded for the payment of
his full disability benefits.
In their position paper, petitioners denied
respondent's claim, contending that his injury was
self-inflicted as he burned himself by pouring paint
thinner on his overalls and set himself on fire. They
presented affidavits and statements by vessel's
officers and crew members to support their claim.
In his reply to the position paper, respondent denied
burning himself, contending that such act was
contrary to human nature and logic. LA decided in
petitioners' favor, giving more credence to the
corroborating testimonies of the petitioners'
witnesses. NLRC affirmed LA. CA ruled in favor of
respondent because petitioners werent able to
establish or substantiate their claim that the
respondent's injury was caused by his willful act.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON there was substantial evidence YES
RULING: Petition granted. Moradas is not entitled
to total disability benefits.
RATIO:
1. NLRC had cogent legal bases to conclude that
petitioners have successfully discharged the burden
of proving by substantial evidence that respondents
injury was directly attributable to him. Respondent
failed to successfully controvert a witness' testimony

that he soaked his hands in a can full of thinner. Also,

respondent's version that the burning was caused by
an accident is hardly supported by evidence on
record. Testimonies show that there was no fire in the
incinerator room at the time respondent got burned
and there were no signs of explosion.
Respondent contended that the affidavits and
statements of the vessels officers and his fellow crew
members should not be given probative value as they
were biased, self-serving, and mere hearsay.
However, he failed to present any evidence to
substantiate his own theory. Corroborating
affidavits and statements of the vessels officers
and crew members must be taken as a whole and
cannot just be perfunctorily dismissed as self-serving
absent any showing that they were lying when they
made the statements therein.
Also, petitioner had a motive as he was caught
pilfering the vessel's supplies for which he was told
that he was to be relieved from his duties. It was
natural for him to brood over feelings of resentment
considering his impending dismissal.
Concurring opinion of Brion, J.
(Brion agrees that Morada is not entitled to the
disability benefits but disagrees with how the pieces
of evidence were interpreted.)
As the CA did, I do not see any logical or causal
connection between the charges of stealing and the
acts of sabotage, on one hand, and the self-inflicted
burning that Moradas allegedly committed, on the
other hand. It is simply contrary to human nature and
experience for Moradas to set himself ablaze because
he was caught stealing the ship's supplies. It is not
true that Moradas failed to rebut the witness' claim
that he saw Moradas go to the paint room and soak
his hands in a can full of thinner. Moradas actually

made a specific denial of that claim in his position

paper before the LA.
The ponencia also explained that the corroborating
affidavits of the other crew members and officers
cannot be dismissed as self-serving in the absence of
any showing that they were lying when they made
their statements. The problem with this explanation is
that the other crew members who executed their
own affidavits have no personal knowledge about
the burning itself.
Chief Officer Bejadas unnotarized written statement

establishes the following facts: (i) that he saw

Moradas while burning; and (ii) that there was no fire
in the incinerator whose steel plates were cool to the
touch. His bare statements, however, do not in any
way prove that Moradas injury was self-inflicted.
While Chief Officer Bejada stated that he ordered an
ordinary seaman to extinguish the fire in the
incinerator, the petitioners did not even bother to
present the crucial testimony of this supposed seaman
to substantially corroborate Chief Officer Bejadas
claim.