8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly . . . The two components of the coverage formula — "arising out of and in the course of employment" — are said to be separate tests which must be independently satisfied; however, it should not be forgotten that the basic concept of compensation coverage is unitary, not dual, and is best expressed in the word, "work-connection," because an uncompromising insistence on an independent application of each of the two portions of the test can, in certain cases, exclude clearly work-connected injuries. The words arising out of refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words in the course of refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident takes place. As a matter of general proposition, an injury or accident is said to arise "in the course of employment" 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. [78] (Emphasis supplied) In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Babol,[79] the 'principle of work-relation' was explained in this wise: Pursuant to the said contract, the injury or illness must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment in order for compensability to arise. Work-relation must, therefore, be established. As a general rule, the principle of work-relation requires that the disease in question must be one of those listed as an occupational disease under Sec. 32-A of the POEA-SEC. Nevertheless, should it be not classified as occupational in nature, Section 20 (B) paragraph 4 of the POEA-SEC provides that such diseases are disputably presumed as work-related. In this case, it is undisputed that NPC afflicted respondent while on board the petitioners' vessel. As a non-occupational disease, it has the disputable presumption of being work-related. This presumption obviously works in the seafarer's favor. Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the employers, the work-relatedness of the disease must be sustained.[80] (Citations omitted) Here, the two (2) elements of a work-related injury are present. Not only was petitioner's injury work-related, it was sustained during the term of his employment contract. His injury, therefore, is compensable. As with the lower courts, this Court finds that petitioner's injury was work-related. Moreover, the labor tribunals also found that respondents breached their contractual obligation by hiring another employee who was prone to committing felonious acts.[81] Under Section 1(A)(4) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, respondents must "take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew[.]"[82] The National Labor Relations Commission reasoned that the master of vessel instructed petitioner and his assailant to work together when prudence dictates that they should https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65333 10/22