7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly recommended by respondents' designated physician. It is well-settled that in order for a seafarer's injury to be compensated, it must be shown that: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.[47] A work-related injury is defined as one arising out of and in the course of employment.[48] As for what can be considered in the course of employment, the Court in the case of Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. held that it is when it takes place within the period of the 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. While the case of Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. involves Act No. 3428 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, We have subsequently applied such definition in cases involving seafarers.[49] After all, entitlement to disability benefits by seafarers is a matter governed not only by the contract between the parties but also by Articles 197 to 199, Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, in relation to Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the Labor Code.[50] In the case of Phil-Nippon Kyoei, Corp. v. Gudelosao,[51] We recognized that the death benefits granted under the Labor Code are similar to those granted in the POEA-SEC, such that both are given when the death is due to a work-related cause during the term of the employee's contract.[52] Prior to the Labor Code, the Workmen's Compensation Act is the first law on workmen's compensation in the Philippines for work-­related injury, illness, or death.[53] As such, We have also noted that the rule on compensation for work related-injuries of seafarers is analogous to the rule under the Workmen's Compensation Act, that a preliminary link between the illness and the employment must first be shown before the presumption of work-relation can attach.[54] In the case of Luzon Stevedoring Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Commission,[55] the Court held that "acts reasonably necessary to health and comfort of an employee while at work, such as satisfaction of his thirst, hunger, or other physical demands, or protecting himself from excessive cold, are incidental to the employment and injuries sustained in the performance of such acts are compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment."[56] Similar to Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co., Luzon Stevedoring Corporation also involves Act No. 3428. Even so, we find that its ruling applies here since Act No. 3428, like the POEA-SEC, also makes personal injury from any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment compensable.[57] In this case, Oscares' act of singing can be considered necessary to his health and comfort while on board the vessel. He incurred his injury while he was performing this act. Oscares neither willfully injured himself nor acted with notorious negligence. Notorious negligence is defined as something more than mere or simple negligence or contributory negligence; it signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal safety.[58] Jumping while singing cannot be considered as a reckless or deliberate act that is unmindful of one's safety. There is nothing inherently dangerous about jumping while singing. Respondents themselves did not allege that Oscares intentionally injured himself or was negligent. The truth is that he simply lost his https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66954 5/11