E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 7 of 18 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57858 employer is not the insurer of the health of his employees, he takes them as he finds them, and assumes the risk of having a weakened condition aggravated by some injury which might not hurt or bother a perfectly normal, healthy person. If the injury is the proximate cause of his death or disability for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant and recovery may be had for injury independent of any pre-existing weakness or disease. [46] (Emphases and underscoring supplied) Clearly, Nancing’s injury was the proximate cause of his death considering that the same, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, triggered the following sequence of events: (a) Nancing’s hospitalization at the Shanghai Seamen’s Hospital[47] where he was diagnosed with “bilateral closed traumatic haemothorax”;[48] (b) his repatriation and eventual admission to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital;[49] and (c) his acute respiratory failure, which was declared to be the immediate cause of his death.[50] Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it cannot be seriously disputed that the first requirement for death compensability concurs in this case. Second Requirement: The Seafarer’s Death Should Occur During The Term Of Employment. With respect to the second requirement for death compensability, the Court takes this opportunity to clarify that while the general rule is that the seafarer’s death should occur during the term of his employment, the seafarer’s death occurring after the termination of his employment due to his medical repatriation on account of a work-related injury or illness constitutes an exception thereto. This is based on a liberal construction of the 2000 POEA-SEC as impelled by the plight of the bereaved heirs who stand to be deprived of a just and reasonable compensation for the seafarer’s death, notwithstanding its evident work-connection. The present petition is a case in point. Here, Nancing’s repatriation occurred during the eighth (8th) month of his one (1) year employment contract. Were it not for his injury, which had been earlier established as work-related, he would not have been repatriated for medical reasons and his contract consequently terminated pursuant to Part 1 of Section 18 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC as hereunder quoted: SECTION 18. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT xxxx B. The employment of the seafarer is also terminated when the 3/27/2020, 12:51 PM