entered into between the employer and his employee which is likewise imbued with public interest. Accordingly, when the employee died or was injured in the occasion of employment, the obligation of the employer for indemnity, automatically attaches. The indemnity may partake of the form of actual, moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, as the case may be depending on the factual milieu of the case and considering the criterion for the award of these damages as outlined by our jurisprudence. In the case at bar, only the award of actual damages, specifically the award for unearned income is warranted by the circumstances since it has been duly proven that the cause of death of Melquiades is a fortuitous event for which Candano Shipping cannot be faulted.” In summary, while the right of seabased OFWs to sue for compensation and benefits for work-related illness, injury or death is well established under the law and under the provisions of the POEA-SEC for seafarers, the same conclusion could not be drawn for landbased OFWs as there are no provisions in the POEA-SEC for landbased OFWs that provide for their compensation and benefits in case of work-related illness, injury or death, similar to the provisions of the POEA-SEC for seafarers. An attempt to apply the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code provisions in an OFW case involving claims for work-related injury was denied by the NLRC in the case of “Deaver W. Solawen vs. Provident Overseas Placement Agency”94, to wit: “The complainant suffered a work-related injury in Malaysia when a small block dislodged from a crane fractured his left leg. Because of the gravity and seriousness of the fracture, he was declared ‘unfit to work’ and can no longer finish his contract. He was repatriated to the Philippines where he was again subjected to another operation ‘for docking with iliac bone graft.’ ‘In this case, complainant invoked Articles 1711 to 1712, in relation to Articles 2199, 2200 and 2205(1), of the Civil Code, complainant opines that he is entitled to the equivalent of his salary for the remainder of his contract term, which he would have earned had he not gotten injured, by way of compensatory or actual damages. Xxx “It bears to stress that the complainant’s claims arose from his employment as an OFW in Malaysia. As such, the applicable law with respect to injuries sustained as a result of said employment is Republic Act (RA) No. 8042, as amended by RA No. 10022, or the Migrant Workers Act, and not the Civil Code. Moreover, complainant cannot invoke Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Joy C. Cabilles, as said case involves illegal dismissal case.xxx “The instant case clearly does not involve illegal dismissal case or authorized deductions from complainant’s salary. It is an undisputed fact that he was repatriated, not because he was dismissed from employment, but because or work-related injuries. Thus, complainant has no legal basis under the Migrant 94 NLRC LAC NO. 09-000762-15 59