4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and irritants while tetanus is an acute infectious disease characterized by tonic spasms of voluntary muscles especially of the jaw and caused by the specific toxin of a tacillus. Evidently, pneumonia and tetanus are two different illnesses. Furthermore, pneumonia is not in anyway related to the burn injury on his left knee [that] seaman Soria suffered. The latter could have acquired this illness while on vacation in his province after his disembarkation. Evidently, his death is not at all compensable. x x x x.[14] Not satisfied with the ruling, respondent appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, after referring the case to LA Thelma M. Concepcion (LA Concepcion), reversed LA Jambaro-Franco’s ruling in its October 20, 2003 Decision.[15] The NLRC, based on the report and recommendation of LA Concepcion, ruled that Zosimo’s death was compensable. It held that the infection of the skin burns that required skin grafting led to the inception of tetanus which ripened into pneumonia. Clearly, the infection of the skin burns which caused the onset of tetanus took place during the term of Zosimo’s employment. It reasoned out that the petitioners failed to show that the pneumonia was not a late complication of tetanus from his skin burns. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the NLRC’s October 20, 2003 Decision. In its April 30, 2004 Resolution,[16] the NLRC granted petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration and reinstated the LA’s January 31, 2000 Decision. In reversing itself, the NLRC explained: It cannot be gainsaid that the rights and obligations of the parties to this case are primarily governed by the terms and conditions of employment embodied in the POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of Seafarers on board Ocean Going Vessels. More particularly, Section 18. (B) [1] of the Standard Contract provides that the employment of the seafarer is terminated when the seafarer signs-off and is disembarked for medical reasons pursuant to Section 20 (B) [4], and arrives at his point of origin. Section 20 (B) [4] in turn provides for the liability of the employer for the full cost of reparation. When the seafarer was thus repatriated on July 10, 1996 after undergoing surgery and treatment and declared fit to be repatriated, the above-cited contractual provisions became operative. The contract, accordingly, was deemed terminated. That the seafarer subsequently died cannot be sufficient basis to hold respondents liable for benefits under the contract. The seafarer’s admitted failure to report to the respondent agency for post-deployment medical examination within the mandatory 72-hours reportorial period militates against his right, or that of his beneficiary, to demand compliance with the so-called elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55408 3/11