8/20/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The Labor Arbiter, in his Decision,[15] dismissed Teodolah's complaint for lack of merit.
He ruled that Eduardo's death is not compensable because it occurred after the
expiration of his employment contract. The Labor Arbiter further reasoned that even
assuming Eduardo died during the term of the contract, it was not clearly and
sufficiently established that the cause of death was work-related or considered an
occupational disease.[16]
Upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision, noting that Teodolah
would be entitled to death benefits only if Eduardo died during the term of his
employment contract.[17] Since Eduardo died one (1) year, five (5) months, and
twenty-three (23) days after the expiration of the contract, the employer-employee
relationship already ceased to exist prior to his death; thus, Teodolah cannot be
granted death benefits.[18] The NLRC likewise denied the motion for reconsideration
filed by Teodolah.[19]
In its Decision[20] dated December 22, 2011, the CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC. It
held that a perusal of the record reveals that Teodolah was able to present substantial
evidence to show her entitlement to death benefits. First, Eduardo's series of
employment contracts with Baltic Marine covered a total lengthy period of almost 10
years. Second, on March 19, 2001, March 27, 2001, July 19, 2001, July 30, 2001,
October 8, 2001, December 3, 2001, November 4, 2003, March 7, 2005, October 7,
2006, January 12, 2007, and January 26, 2007, Eduardo consulted at the Lung Center
of the Philippines where he was diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma,
sinusitis, and bronchitis. Third, Eduardo, as a Second Officer (formerly Third Officer) on
board the vessel, was exposed to toxic fumes, chemicals, and such other hazards which
contributed to his lung illness. Fourth, the immediate cause of Eduardo's death was
"Acute Respiratory Failure" and the antecedent cause was "Prob. Sec. to Pulmonary
Thromboembolism."[21]
The CA found that Eduardo acquired bronchial asthma, an occupational disease under
Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, within the period of his service with Baltic Marine.
For the CA, there was at least a reasonable connection between Eduardo's job as a
Second Officer and his bronchial asthma, which eventually developed into acute
respiratory failure. It likewise held that it is of no moment that Eduardo died after the
expiration of his last contract, because what is controlling is the fact that he acquired
his lung disease while he was still rendering sea services. Such disease was further
aggravated by continued exposure to chemicals while on board.[22] The CA held that
the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of the
complaint considering that there was substantial evidence showing a causal connection
between Eduardo's lung illness and his work as a seaman. It thus ordered petitioners to
pay Teodolah death benefits and burial expenses in accordance with the 2000 POEASEC.[23]
The petitioners filed the instant petition after the CA issued a Resolution denying their
motion for reconsideration.[24] They argue that: Teodolah is not entitled to death
compensation considering that Eduardo died after the termination of his contract;[25]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64957
2/9