ROSALINA TAGLE VS COURT OF APPEALS

ROSALINA TAGLE

VS

COURT OF APPEALS
466 SCRA 521 (2005)

When the provisions of the employment contract are clear and unambiguous, its literal meaning controls.

Wilfredo Tagle (Wilfredo), husband of petitioner Rosalina Tagle (Rosalina), was recruited by respondent Fast International Corporation (FIC) to work as fisherman at Taiwan for its principal, respondent Kuo Tung Yu Huang (Huang). They then executed an employment contract for one year, extendible for another year upon mutual agreement of the parties.

During the duration of the contract, the fishing vessel boarded by Wilfredo in Taiwan collided with another and thereafter sank. Despite efforts to look for Wilfredo’s corpus, the same proved futile. He was therefore presumed dead. Rosalina thus filed a claim for death benefits with FIC. The claim was approved and Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Co., Inc., (PPLICI) issued a check in the amount of P650,000.00. Upon receipt by Rosalina of the check, she accomplished a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim stating that such would be an absolute bar to any suit that either is now pending or may be henceforth prosecuted concerning claims, demands, causes of action, etc. Rosalina, however, subsequently filed before the National Relations Commission (NLRC), a complaint for additional ―labor insurance‖ in the amount of NT$300,000.00. On motion of FIC, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of Rosalina on the ground that by her prior execution of the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim she is barred from filing any subsequent action against FIC.

Rosalina appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision stating that nothing on record would indicate that the P650,000.00 paid by PPLICI is separate and distinct from the obligation of the FIC and its principal Huang arising from the employment contract and the release and quitclaim forever barred the filing of any subsequent action against FIC. Upon Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), it approved the NLRC resolution finding ―no shred of capriciousness or arbitrariness on the part of the NLRC‖ in dismissing her appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim executed by Rosalina included the additional labor insurance she is entitled to as provided for in Section 10, Article II of her deceased husband’s employment contract

HELD:
Death could be a result of accident, but accident does not necessarily result to death.

Compensation benefits for illness, death, accident which does not result to death, and partial or total disability are treated separately and differently in the 3-paragraph provision of Article II, Section 10 of the employment contract. The said provision in the employment contract being clear and unambiguous, its literal meaning controls.

To uphold Tagle’s claim for additional insurance for accident, assuming that one for the purpose was secured, after receiving insurance benefits for death arising from accident, would violate the clear provision of Article II, Section 10 of the employment contract, the law between the parties. And it would trifle with the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, another contract between the parties, barring Tagle from claiming other or additional benefits arising from Tagle’s husband’s death-basis of the release of the insurance proceeds to her.