3/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [retreated] out of sight. Together with Mr. Tamayo, Mr. Dela Cruz went to swimming pool to locate Mr. Siador but with no avail. He disappeared. After that they went forward to see the Bosun and report this unusual behavior. Bosun decided to go to Engine room and find Mr. Moreno who is [a] good friend of Mr. Siador and try to [find] him and eventually find out the reason for such unusual behaviour. - Today[, at] around 0500 LT, Mr. Siador called on the phone Mr. Moreno and asked to join him in his cabin. Mr. Moreno went and Mr. Siador said to him “Jesus win, Evil [lose], Bosun [lose].’ Mr. Moreno replied OK and returned to his cabin. - Mr. Alcantara noticed that Mr. Siador in last few days is taking less food than before and that he declined in his personal appearance/hygiene. Furthermore[,] Mr. Siador started to take his food later than the rest of the crew, apparently avoiding other persons. On [Mr. Alcantara’s] enquiry about these changes, Mr. Siador said that he [had] one problem but he didn’t specify anything. - Mr. Ave, Mr. Moreno and Mr. Santos, today after lunch [at] around 1245 LT[,] spoke with Mr. Siador in his cabin and asked him if there is anything wrong with his state of health but [Mr. Siador’s] reply was everything is in order. According to Apolinario, the statements describing Dennis’ actuations can only point to the conclusion that Dennis was already mentally disturbed a few days before he plunged into the ocean and drowned. Since Dennis was no longer in his right mind, his act of jumping into the open sea cannot be considered willful on his part. The CA recognized merit in this argument, adding that Dennis’ assignment to the Gas Cargo Engineer to perform work outside of his regular duties “obviously took a toll on his mental condition.”[33] The CA cited the cases of Lapid v. NLRC[34] and Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC[35] in upholding the presumption of self-preservation over the employer’s claim of suicide. We find the cited cases inapplicable to the present case. In Naess,[36] the Court affirmed the award of death benefits to a seafarer who “jumped or fell overboard” as he ran towards the deck after fatally stabbing a co-worker. The Court reasoned out that the parties’ contract makes Naess “unqualifiedly liable to pay compensation benefits for [the seafarer’s] death while in its service.” Given this conclusion, the Court only “parenthetically” observed that the “events surrounding the death of [the seafarer] have not been established with any degree of certitude.” In short, the employer was liable without qualifications for death benefits because the employer’s liability arises solely from the fact of the seafarer’s death. The contract in Lapid is different from Naess. It provides, as in the present case, that if elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57997 8/13