interorient maritime vs remo

8/9/2019 InterOrient Maritime vs Remo

1/13

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

INTERORIENT MARITIME

ENTERPRISES, INC.,

INTERORIENT ENTERPRISES, INC.,

andLIBERIA AND DOROTHEA

SHIPPIN CO., LTD.,

Petitioners,

- versus -

LEONORA S. REMO, Respondent.

.R. No. !"!!!#

Present:

CARPIO,J. Chairperson,

NACHURA,PERA!A,A"A#, $nd%EN#O&A,JJ.Pro'ul($ted:

)une *+, *

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACH$RA, J.%

"efore this Court is Petition for Revie on Certiorari/0under Rule 12 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure, see3in( the revers$l of the Court of Appe$ls 4CA5

#ecision/*0d$ted 6epte'ber *7, *8, hich reversed $nd set $side the

resolution/90of the N$tion$l $bor Rel$tions Co''ission 4NRC5 d$ted )une *9,

*7.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn1


2/13

!his c$se ste's fro' the cl$i' for de$th benefits filed b respondent

eonor$ 6. Re'o 4respondent5, survivin( spouse of utero Re'o 4utero5, $($inst

petitioners Interorient %$riti'e Enterprises, Inc. 4Interorient5, Interorient

Enterprises, Inc., $nd iberi$$nd #orothe$ 6hippin( Co., td. 4petitioners5.

Culled fro' the records, the f$cts $re $s follos:

utero $s deploed b Interorient on Nove'ber , ++; to serve $s Coo3-

6te$rd on bo$rd the forei(n princip$l th$t Interorient $ssured

utero th$t he ould be (iven $ 'edic$l e?$'in$tion $nd $ssist$nce hich did not,

hoever, '$teri$lie> th$t utero, $fter $itin( for $bout to ee3s for the

e?$'in$tion, ent ho'e to his province but, to ee3s there$fter, he $s $($in

confined in $ hospit$l $fter e?periencin( $nother episode of difficult in bre$thin(,

$bdo'in$l $nd chest p$ins, dspne$, $nd irre(ul$r c$rdi$c bre$thin(> th$t for the

period of %$ 9 to #ece'ber +, +++, he underent tre$t'ent for the $il'ent hecontr$cted durin( his overse$s e'plo'ent> th$t utero $s di$(nosed ith

Chronic Atri$l Bibrill$tion, C$rdio'e($l, Essenti$l Hpertension, $nd

6chistoso'i$sis>/70th$t so'eti'e there$fter, he received notice fro' Interorient,

re@uirin( hi' to report $s there $s supposedl $ vessel $v$il$ble for hi' to oin>

th$t he tried to persu$de his $ttendin( doctor, #r. Efren O$r$($ 4#r. O$r$($5, to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn6


3/13

decl$re hi' fit to or3 bec$use he $nted to resu'e his or3, but the doctor

refused> th$t utero reported to Interorient, but f$iled in his PE%E> th$t on Au(ust

*;, *, he died $t the $(e of 18 of hpertensive c$rdio-v$scul$r dise$se,/80le$vin( behind respondent $nd their three 495 children>/;0th$t fro' the ti'e of his

disch$r(e fro' the vessel, utero did not receive $n sic3ness benefit or 'edic$l$ssist$nce fro' petitioners> $nd th$t respondent is entitled to de$th co'pens$tion

$s the de$th of her husb$nd $s due to $n illness contr$cted durin( the l$tterDs

e'plo'ent, $s ell $s sic3ness benefit, 'or$l $nd e?e'pl$r d$'$(es, $nd

$ttorne th$t respondent $s not entitled to her cl$i's bec$use utero died

$fter the e?pir$tion of the ter' of the contr$ct> th$t utero f$iled to disclose his

pree?istin( illness $t the ti'e of his en($(e'ent> $nd th$t, folloin( his

rep$tri$tion, he $c3noled(ed his pree?istin( illness.

On )$nu$r 9, *1, the $bor Arbiter 4A5 denied respondentDs cl$i's,

holdin( th$t she $s not entitled thereto bec$use utero


4/13

$n illness contr$cted durin( his e'plo'ent, or th$t s$id e'plo'ent contributed

to the develop'ent of his illness.

On 6epte'ber *7, *8, the CA decided in f$vor of respondent, findin( th$t

the n$ture of uteroDs e'plo'ent contributed to the $((r$v$tion of his illness.Invo3in( our rulin(s in Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. v.

NLC/10$nd !allem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLC,/20the CA disposed of the

c$se in this ise:

&HERE'ORE, the petition is RANTED. !he $ss$iled Resolutions of

the N$tion$l $bor Rel$tions Co''ission $re REVERSED$ndSET ASIDE.Priv$te respondents $re ordered to p$, ointl $nd sever$ll, the folloin($'ounts to petitioner for herself $nd in her c$p$cit $s (u$rdi$n of her 'inorchildren: U6=2,. $s de$th benefit> U6=8,. to e$ch child under the $(eof tent-one 4*5, $s $llo$nces> $nd U6=,. $s buri$l e?penses. Costs$($inst the priv$te respondents.

SO ORDERED./70

On October 2, *8, petitioners filed their %otion for Reconsider$tion,/80hich $s, hoever, denied b the CA in its Resolution /;0d$ted #ece'ber *,

*8.

Hence, this Petition b$sed on the folloin( (rounds:

5 !HE HONORA"E COUR! OB APPEA6 ERRE# INNO! HO#ING !HA! RE6PON#EN! I6 NO! EN!I!E#!O #EA!H "ENEBI!6 UN#ER !HE POEA6!AN#AR# E%PO%EN! CON!RAC! BOR !HE #EA!H OBHER HU6"AN# OCCUR/R0ING ONE EAR AB!ER !HE !ER% OB HI6CON!RAC!>

*5 !HE HONORA"E COUR! OB APPEA6 ERRE# INNO! HO#ING !HA! RE6PON#EN! I6 NO! EN!I!E#!O #EA!H "ENEBI!6 UN#ER !HE POEA6!AN#AR# E%PO%EN! CON!RAC! BOR !HE #EA!H OBHER HU6"AN# A6 !HE A!!ERD6 #EA!H A6 #UE !O /A0 PRE-EJI6!ING INE66/> $nd0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn18


5/13

95 !HE HONORA"E COUR! OB APPEA6 ERRE# INNO! HO#ING !HA! !HE RE6PON#EN! I6 NO! EN!I!E#!O #EA!H "ENEBI!6 UN#ER !HE POEA6!AN#AR# E%PO%EN! CON!RAC! BOR !HE #EA!H OBHER HU6"AN# A6 !HE A!!ER A#%I!!E# CONCEAING

HI6 !RUE %E#ICA CON#I!ION A! !HE !I%E OB HI6 PRE-E%PO%EN! %E#ICA EJA%INA!ION./+0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn19


6/13

Petitioners rel on the findin(s of both the A $nd the NRC th$t the de$th of

utero is not co'pens$ble bec$use it h$ppened outside the ter' of his contr$ct.

Petitioners cl$i' th$t the 'edic$l certific$te issued b #r. O$r$($, certifin( th$t

utero $s $lre$d fit to resu'e or3, belies respondentDs $ssertion th$t utero

continued to be ill $fter his rep$tri$tion until his de$th. Petitioners $lso rel on theundert$3in( e?ecuted b utero, st$tin( th$t, before he oined the vessel, he

$lre$d h$d hpertension, $nd th$t he too3 'edic$tion prior to his 'edic$l

e?$'in$tion. !hus, petitioners sub'it th$t utero co''itted '$teri$l

'isrepresent$tion, dis@u$lifin( hi' fro' cl$i'in( the benefits provided for under

the POEA-6EC./*0

On the other h$nd, respondent $r(ues th$t petitioners f$iled to $tt$ch the

pertinent docu'ents $nd ple$din(s to the Petition, $nd th$t the petition r$isesf$ctu$l issues in viol$tion of Rule 12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent

$ssever$tes th$t petitionersD st$nce th$t the e'ploer is li$ble onl if the de$th of

the se$f$rer occurs e?$ctl durin( the ter' of the contr$ct viol$tes the n$ture of the

POEA-6EC $nd is contr$r to the $voed polic of the 6t$te to $ccord ut'ost

protection $nd ustice to l$bor. Invo3in( our rulin( in !allem,/*0respondent

'$int$ins th$t it is enou(h th$t the e'plo'ent h$d contributed, even in $ s'$ll

de(ree, to the develop'ent of the dise$se $nd in brin(in( $bout 4the se$f$rer


7/13

!he ulti'$te issue in this c$se is hether the CA co''itted $ reversible

error in renderin( the $ss$iled #ecision.

!he Petition is bereft of 'erit.

As $ rule, onl @uestions of l$ '$ be r$ised in $nd resolved b this Court

on petitions brou(ht under Rule 12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, bec$use the

Court, not bein( $ trier of f$cts, is not dut-bound to ree?$'ine $nd c$libr$te the

evidence on record.In e?ception$l c$ses, hoever, e '$ delve into $nd resolve

f$ctu$l issues hen there is insufficient or insubst$nti$l evidence to support the

findin(s of the tribun$l or court belo, or hen too 'uch is concluded, inferred or

deduced fro' the b$re or inco'plete f$cts sub'itted b the p$rties, or hen theloer courts co'e up ith conflictin( positions./*90 !his c$se constitutes $n

e?ception in$s'uch $s the CADs findin(s contr$dict those of the A $nd the NRC.

6ection *4"5 of the 6t$nd$rd !er's $nd Conditions Governin( the

E'plo'ent of Bilipino 6e$f$rers On-"o$rd Oce$n-Goin( Lessels '$de pursu$nt

to POEA %e'or$ndu' Circul$r No. 22-+7 $nd #ep$rt'ent Order No. 99, 6eries

of ++7, cle$rl provides:

!he li$bilities of the e'ploer hen the se$f$rer suffers inur or illness

durin( the ter' of his contr$ct $re $s follos:

? ? ? ?

*. If the inur or illness re@uires 'edic$l $ndMor dent$l tre$t'ent in$ forei(n port, the e'ploer sh$ll be li$ble for the full cost of such'edic$l, serious dent$l, sur(ic$l $nd hospit$l tre$t'ent $s ell $sbo$rd $nd lod(in( until the se$f$rer is decl$red fit to or3 or to berep$tri$ted.

Ho(e)er, i* a*ter repatriation, t+e ea*arer till re-uire medialattention ariin/ *rom aid in0ur1 or illne, +e +all 2e o pro)ided at

ot to t+e emplo1er until u+ time +e i delared *it or t+e de/ree o*

+i dia2ilit1 +a 2een eta2li+ed 21 t+e ompan13dei/nated

p+1iian./*10
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn24


8/13

Bor dis$bilit cl$i's, the post-e'plo'ent 'edic$l e?$'in$tion is 'e$nt to

verif the 'edic$l condition of the se$f$rer hen he si(ns off fro' the vessel./*20On the other h$nd, in the c$ses involvin( de$th co'pens$tion, our rulin(s

in "au Sheng #hils., Inc. v. Joa$uin/*70$ndivera v. !allem Maritime Services,

Inc./*80stressed the i'port$nce of $ post-e'plo'ent 'edic$l e?$'in$tion or itse@uiv$lent, i.e.,it is $ b$sis for the $$rd of de$th co'pens$tion. In these cited

c$ses, hoever, de$th benefits ere not $$rded bec$use the se$f$rers $ndMor their

represent$tives f$iled to $bide b the POEA-6EC herein it $s st$ted th$t the

se$f$rer 'ust report to his e'ploer for $ post-e'plo'ent 'edic$l e?$'in$tion

ithin three or3in( d$s fro' the d$te of $rriv$l, otherise, benefits under the

POEA-6EC ould be nullified./*;0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn28


9/13

In li(ht of this rulin(, the folloin( @uestions '$ be $s3ed: h$t if the

se$f$rer reported to his e'ploer but despite his re@uest for $ post-e'plo'ent

'edic$l e?$'in$tion, the e'ploer, ho is '$nd$ted to provide this service under

POEA %e'or$ndu' Circul$r No. 22-+7, did not do so ould the $bsence of $

post-e'plo'ent 'edic$l e?$'in$tion be t$3en $($inst the se$f$rer

"oth p$rties in this c$se $d'itted th$t utero $s confined in $ hospit$l

in #ub$i for $l'ost one ee3 due to $tri$l fibrill$tion $nd con(estive he$rt f$ilure.

Undeni$bl, utero suffered $ he$rt $il'ent hile under the e'plo of petitioners.

!his f$ct is dul est$blished. Respondent h$s $lso consistentl $sserted th$t *-9

d$s i''edi$tel $fter his rep$tri$tion on April +, +++, utero reported to the

office of Interorient, re@uestin( the re@uired post-e'plo'ent 'edic$l

e?$'in$tion. Hoever, it $ppe$rs th$t, inste$d of heedin( uteroDs re@uest,

Interorient convenientl prioritied the e?ecution of the Ac3noled('ent $nd

Undert$3in( hich ere purportedl not$ried on April *, +++, thus le$vin(

utero in the cold. In their ple$din(s, petitioners never tr$versed this $ssertion $nd

did not 'eet this issue he$d-on. !his self-servin( $ct of petitioners should not be

condoned $t the e?pense of our se$f$rers. !herefore, the $bsence of $ post-

e'plo'ent 'edic$l e?$'in$tion c$nnot be used to defe$t respondent

$nd 495 th$t the contr$ct is not contr$r to l$, public order, public polic, 'or$ls

or (ood custo's, or preudici$l to $ third person ith $ ri(ht reco(nied b l$.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftn29


10/13

/90Courts h$ve stepped in to $nnul @uestion$ble tr$ns$ctions, especi$ll here

there is cle$r proof th$t $ $iver, for inst$nce, $s obt$ined fro' $n unsuspectin(

or $ (ullible person> or here the $(ree'ent or settle'ent $s unconscion$ble on

its f$ce. A @uitcl$i' is ineffective in b$rrin( recover of the full 'e$sure of $

or3erDs ri(hts, $nd the $ccept$nce of benefits therefro' does not $'ount toestoppel. %oreover, $ @uitcl$i' in hich the consider$tion is sc$nd$lousl lo $nd

ine@uit$ble c$nnot be $n obst$cle to the pursuit of $ or3erDs le(iti'$te cl$i'./90

"$sed on the fore(oin( dis@uisition, e find the Ac3noled('ent $nd

Undert$3in( to be void, $s contr$r to public polic. Other th$n the f$ct th$t the

Ac3noled('ent $nd Undert$3in( did not provide for $n consider$tion (iven in

f$vor of utero, it is li3eise evident th$t the ter's thereof $re unconscion$ble $nd

th$t petitioners 'erel $n(led the' fro' the unsuspectin( utero ho, $t th$t

ti'e, ust $rrived in the countr $fter h$vin( been confined in $ hospit$l in #ub$i

for $ he$rt $il'ent.

It is $ ti'e-honored rule th$t in controversies beteen $ l$borer $nd his

e'ploer, doubts re$son$bl $risin( fro' the evidence or fro' the interpret$tion of

$(ree'ents $nd ritin(s should be resolved in the for'erDs f$vor in conson$nce

ith the $voed polic of the 6t$te to (ive '$?i'u' $id $nd protection to l$bor./9*0 !his principle (ives us even (re$ter re$son to $ffir' the findin(s of the CA

hich $ptl $nd udiciousl held:

It $s est$blished on record th$t before the l$te utero Re'o si(ned hisl$st contr$ct ith priv$te respondents $s Coo3-6te$rd of the vessel %M!C$pt$in %itsos ,F he $s re@uired to under(o $ series of 'edic$l e?$'in$tions.et, he $s decl$red fit to or3F b priv$te respondents< co'p$n desi(n$ted-phsici$n. On April +, +++, Re'o $s disch$r(ed fro' his vessel $fter he $shospit$lied in Bu$ir$h foratrial %i&rillation $nd congestive heart %ailure. Hisde$th on Au(ust *;, *, even if it occurred 'onths $fter his rep$tri$tion, duetoh'pertensive cardio(vascular disease, could cle$rl h$ve been or3 rel$ted.#ecl$red $s fit to or3F $t the ti'e of hirin(, $nd hospit$lied hile on serviceon $ccount of $tri$l fibrill$tion $nd con(estive he$rt f$ilure,F his eventu$l de$thdue to hpertensive c$rdio-v$scul$r dise$seF could onl be or3 rel$ted. !hede$th due to hpertensive c$rdio-v$scul$r dise$seF could in f$ct be tr$ced toutero Re'o


11/13

3ind of food th$t eventu$ll c$used his hpertensive c$rdio-v$scul$r dise$se,F $dise$se hich in turn $d'ittedl c$used his de$th.

Priv$te respondents c$nnot den li$bilit for the subect de$th b cl$i'in(th$t the se$f$rer


12/13

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associ$te )usticeROBERTO A. ABAD

Associ$te )ustice

4OSE CATRAL MENDO5A

Associ$te )ustice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I $ttest th$t the conclusions in the $bove #ecision h$d been re$ched inconsult$tion before the c$se $s $ssi(ned to the riter of the opinion of the Court


13/13

/0 ollo, pp. 9-9./*0 #oc3eted $s CA-G.R. 6P No. +8997, penned b Associ$te )ustice Licente 6.E. Leloso, ith Associ$te

)ustices )u$n . Enri@ue, )r. $nd %$rlene Gon$les-6ison, concurrin(> id. $t 99-11./90 ollo, pp. 7*-8./10 CA rollo, p. +./20 Id. $t ;;-;+./70 Id. $t +-+9./80 Id. $t +1./;0 Id. $t +2-+;./+0 Id. $t *-1./0 Id. $t 2./0 Id. $t 7./*0 Id. $t 8./90 Id. $t 7-1;./10 G.R. No. *97+, )une ;, *, 999 6CRA *97./20 987 Phil. 89; 4+++5./70 6upr$ note *, $t 19-11./80 ollo, pp. 82-;*./;0 Id. $t 17./+0 6upr$ note , $t ./*0 Id./*0 6upr$ note 2./**0 Co''ent> rollo, pp. +8-1./*90 #ascua v. NLC, 92 Phil. 1;, 7 4++;5./*10 E'ph$sis supplied./*20 Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime )genc',G.R. No. 8+88, )ul *9, *+, 2+9 6CRA 77;./*70 G.R. No. 11772, 6epte'ber ;, *1, 198 6CRA 7;./*80 G.R. No. 792, Nove'ber , *2, 181 6CRA 81./*;0 6ection *4"5 9 of POEA %e'or$ndu' Circul$r No. 22-+7.

/*+0 #hil. *mplo' Services and esources, Inc. v. #aramio, G.R. No. 118;7, April 2, *1, 1*8 6CRA 89*,822./90 +anas Intercontinental, Inc. v. +aguman, G.R. No. 2197;, April 2, *2, 127 6CRA 9;*, 9+8-9+;./90 - * Transport, Inc. v. Latag, G.R. No. 22*1, Bebru$r 9, *1, 1** 6CRA 7+;, 8;./9*0 Metropolitan an and Trust Compan' v. National La&or elations Commission, G.R. No. 2*+*;, )une;, *+, 2;+ 6CRA 987./990 6upr$ note *, $t 1-19.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/181112.htm#_ftnref33

interorient maritime vs remo

Documents