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