4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Issue Before the Court The pivotal issue raised for the Court’s resolution is whether Joselito’s death is compensable as to entitle Cristina to claim death benefits. At this point, it should be noted that the compensability of Joselito’s death should be resolved under the provisions of the 1996 POEA-SEC, which is the POEA-SEC in effect when petitioners employed him in January 2002. This is because the 2000 POEA-SEC which introduced amendments to the 1996 POEA-SEC initially took effect on June 25, 2000 but its implementation was suspended[35] and lifted only on June 5, 2002.[36] The Court’s Ruling The petition is bereft of merit. At the outset, it bears stressing that the employment of seafarers, including claims for death benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. As long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties. Nonetheless, while the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer’s contract. [37] The prevailing rule under the 1996 POEA-SEC was that the illness leading to the eventual death of seafarer need not be shown to be work-related in order to be compensable, but must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. Neither is it required that there be proof that the working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease or illness.[38] An injury or accident is said to arise “in the course of employment” when it takes place within the period of employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto.[39] A meticulous perusal of the records reveals that Joselito contracted his illness in the course of employment. It cannot also be denied that the same was aggravated during the same period. Thus, there was a clear causal connection between such illness and his eventual death, making his death compensable. Verily, Joselito complained of significant pain in the abdominal region while aboard M/T Demetra and during the extended period of his employment. Upon undergoing different medical procedures, the doctors discovered that the tumor in Joselito’s right inguinal canal “corresponded to a tumor formation dependent on the right testicle.”[40] Despite the company designated physician’s declaration that Joselito was fit to work, his condition continued to deteriorate as succeeding medical reports showed the presence of testicular as well as abdominal germ tumors.[41] His abdominal germ tumor, being in the midline portion of the body, the most common metastasis (spread) will be in the lungs.[42] This is supported by medical reports showing the presence of multiple pulmonary nodules, as well as reactive mesothelial cells,[43] which is consistent with the presence of metastatic tumor.[44] Thereafter, Joselito underwent thoracentesis[45] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55976 4/10