E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 9 of 18 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57858 is by this method of construction that undue prejudice to the laborer and his heirs may be obviated and the State policy on labor protection be championed. For if the laborer’s death was brought about (whether fully or partially) by the work he had harbored for his master’s profit, then it is but proper that his demise be compensated. Here, since it has been established that (a) the seafarer had been suffering from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his employment, (b) his injury or illness was the cause for his medical repatriation, and (c) it was later determined that the injury or illness for which he was medically repatriated was the proximate cause of his actual death although the same occurred after the term of his employment, the above-mentioned rule should squarely apply. Perforce, the present claim for death benefits should be granted. To quell any confusion, it is but fitting to make clear that a liberal construction of Section 20 of the 2000 POEA-SEC as above-discussed would not offend the Court’s ruling in Klaveness,[57] which was inaccurately relied upon by the CA to justify its decision. The inaccuracy so recognized stems from the glaring factual and legal variance between Klaveness and the present case. Upon careful scrutiny, the seafarer in Klaveness was not medically repatriated but was actually signed off from the vessel after the completion of his contract. He was subsequently diagnosed to have urinary bladder cancer, which was not proven to be workrelated, and died almost two (2) years after the termination of his contract of employment. Hence, since the employment contract was terminated without any connection to a work-related cause, but rather because of its mere lapse, death benefits were denied to the seafarer’s heirs. In contrast, the seafarer in this case was medically repatriated due to a work-related injury which resulted to his death a month after his confinement in a local hospital. Again, were it not for said injury, the seafarer would not have been medically repatriated and his employment contract, in turn, terminated. By these circumstances, it is clear that the termination of the employment contract was forced upon by a work-related cause. As alluded earlier, it would then be antithetical to the State’s policy on labor to deprive the seafarer’s heirs of death compensation despite its palpable work-connection. Based on the foregoing, it is, hence, apparent that the Court’s pronouncement herein would not conflict that in Klaveness. Truth be told, the defining parameter in workers’ compensation cases should be the element of work-relatedness which was clearly absent in the “contract-completion” situation in Klaveness.[58] To reiterate, if the death is work-related, as herein ascribed, then the seafarer’s heirs should not be denied compensation. To reinforce the point, a survey of previous Court rulings wherein death compensability had been denied the heirs of the seafarer actually demonstrates the significance of the work-relatedness element in workers’ compensation cases. For instance, in Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin,[59] the illness of the seafarer therein, who was terminated based on mutual consent, was found to be non-compensable since he died of chronic renal failure which was not listed as a compensable illness. Likewise, in Aya-ay, Sr. v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp.,[60] the Court denied the claim for death compensation because the seafarer therein was repatriated due to an eye injury but subsequently died of a stroke, which was not listed as a compensable 3/27/2020, 12:51 PM