4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Hospital where he was transferred in October 2004, he was diagnosed as suffering from
lung carcinoma with brain metastases.[6] On 1 March 2005, he succumbed to
metastatic lung carcinoma and died of cardio-respiratory arrest, secondary to acute
respiratory failure, and secondary to multi-organ failure.[7]
Subsequently, his widow instituted before the labor arbiter (LA) a collection suit[8]
against petitioners for seafarer benefits under Section 20 of the POEA Contract. Salazar
sought the payment of hospitalization and medical expenses, burial expenses,
compensation and death benefits, minor child’s allowance for their daughter Alice,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Salazar insisted that the agency owed her both death and illness benefits, because her
husband died of an illness that he had contracted while he was at sea. She narrated
that Armando used to work as an Able Seaman in the ship cargo without any protective
gear. She further alleged that his work environment exposed him to deleterious
elements emanating from the cargo.
In turn, these conditions caused him to suffer constant headaches, which led to the
worsening of his health.
Petitioners denied liability. According to the agency, claims for death benefits, minor
child’s allowance, and burial expenses under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract (Death
Benefits) would only prosper if the seafarer died during his employment term.
Considering that Armando died six months after his repatriation, it argued that Salazar
could not claim death benefits.
The agency further disputed the benefits under Section 20(B) of the POEA Contract,
consisting of medical expenses and sickness allowance (Illness Benefits). In support of
its allegation, it highlighted the fact that Armando never reported or complained of any
health problem while at sea. As regards the causality between his lung cancer and his
work, it categorically denied that he had been exposed to effluvia or emission from any
machinery that would have triggered the formation of cancer. The agency contended
that as an Able Seaman, Armando only worked as a deck contingent.[9] Unfortunately,
as per the records, none of the parties or the courts a quo provided any reference
depicting his actual tasks.
In her Decision,[10] the LA denied all of respondent’s monetary claims. The LA
explained that for the benefits under the POEA Contract to arise, a claimant must show
that the death of the seafarer, as well as the illness that caused his death, (1)
transpired during his service and (2) resulted from his work conditions.
In this case, the LA appreciated that Armando could not have contracted lung cancer
during his service, since there was no report in the ship’s records of any of his alleged
health problems. Since he died after his repatriation, respondent’s claim for death
benefits was denied. Lastly, the LA ruled that the beneficiaries of Armando were
prevented from claiming benefits under the POEA Contract, because the seafarer had
not gone through the mandatory PEME within 72 hours from his repatriation.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56149
2/13