Purely speculative

Does the death of a seaman several months after his repatriation due to illness necessarily mean that the seaman died of the same illness or that his working conditions increase the risk of contracting the illness that caused his death and thus make it compensable? This is the question answered in this case of Dencio.

Dencio was hired by a manning agency (OSC) in behalf of its principal in Japan as Second Engineer in one of the latter’s vessels with a monthly basic salary of $1,120 for a period of 12 months pursuant to a Contract of Employment dated August 23, 2004 duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

He boarded the vessel and started performing his task on August 29, 2004. But after more than seven months on board or on April 9, 2005, he already requested for a vacation leave effective May 2005. The said request was granted by the OSC and its principal, so Dencio was duly paid all that was due him under his contract of employment. Then on May 21, 2005, he disembarked from the vessel and returned to the Philippines.

In the early part of June 2005, Dencio reported at the office of OSC applying for new employment and requested that he be lined up for another vessel. Accordingly, he was advised to undergo the usual pre-employment medical examination at the OSC’s duly accredited diagnostic center. But on July 2, 2005, after completing the medical and laboratory examination, Dencio collapsed and was immediately brought to the PGH where he died of myocardial infarction.

As a consequence, Dencio’s wife, Flora filed a claim before the Labor Arbiter for death compensation under Section 20 (A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract where the wife is entitled to $50,000 and an additional amount of $7,000 to each child under age 21 but not exceeding 4 children, payable in Philippine currency at the prevailing rate of exchange.

Flora claimed that while Dencio was performing his task on board the vessel, he felt a throbbing pain in his chest and shortening of breath as if he was about to fall and thus took a rest. After recovering Dencio allegedly informed his superior but was ignored. So he just decided to disembark and return to the Philippines. And when he went to the manning agency to ask for medical attention about his condition, Flora alleged that the agency informed him that he was already scheduled for his next deployment and must undergo the required medical examination at the agency’s duly accredited diagnostic center. And it was during such examination when he died of myocardial infarction. Is Flora entitled to the compensation benefits?

No more. It is clear that at the time of Dencio’s repatriation the employer-employee relationship between him and the OSC and its principal has already been terminated. Dencio died after he pre-terminated the contract of employment, so its terms and conditions ceased to have any force and effect including the payment of death compensation benefits to his heirs. Granting that OSC and its principal were made aware of Dencio’s prior heart ailment, the fact remains that he died after the effectivity of his contract because he asked for its pre-termination. No proof was presented to substantiate Flora’s claim that her husband suffered chest pain and difficulty of breathing while performing his task. To surmise that he asked for the pre-termination of his contract due to his medical condition is highly speculative. Thus there was no substantial evidence to prove that Dencio’s illness which caused his death was aggravated during the term of his contract. The death of a seaman several months after his repatriation for illness does not necessarily mean that he died of the same illness or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting said illness which caused his death. So his death is not compensable unless there is some reasonable basis to support otherwise (One Shipping Corp etc. vs.  Penafiel, G.R. 192486, Jan. 21, 2015)

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected].