4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly which further revealed malignant cells in his body.[46] Moreover, Joselito’s Death Certificate[47] stated respiratory failure as the immediate cause of his death, with pulmonary metastasis as antecedent cause. The underlying cause for his death was germ cell tumor which may be found, among others, in the testes and the center back wall of the abdominal cavity. [48] The World Health Organization defines an underlying cause as the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or circumstances of the accident or violence that produced the fatal injury.[49] Perforce, there existed a clear causal connection between Joselito’s illness which he contracted during employment and his eventual death. The Court cannot give credence to petitioners’ claim[50] that Joselito’s death occurred beyond the term of his employment because his extended/renewed contract was void for lack of POEA approval and thus, barred recognition of any rights and obligations arising therefrom. Such interpretation runs counter to the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor, especially in the instant case where the lack of POEA approval was not Joselito’s fault who was made to continuously serve aboard M/T Demetra beyond the maximum allowable period of service of twelve months[51] without the benefit of a formal contract or being subjected to another pre-employment medical examination (PEME). Petitioners made such a scenario occur and should not benefit from their wrongful acts. Thus, the CA is correct in holding that there was an implied renewal of Joselito’s contract of employment for another nine (9) months starting from the expiration of the allowable three (3) month extension on January 28, 2003, or for the period of January 29, 2003 up to October 28, 2003, with petitioners being deemed to have relied on Joselito’s fitness based on his previous PEME and assumed the risk of liability for illness contracted during such extended term. In this regard, the Court has repeatedly held that a worker brings with him possible infirmities in the course of his employment and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability.[52] Neither may the execution of release documents in petitioners’ favor detract from the compensability of Joselito’s death. While the documents appear to have been executed voluntarily, they were the result of a pre-designated scheme to evade payment of disability benefits due to Joselito, whose medical condition gradually regressed despite the company designated physician’s declaration that he was fit to work. Anent the release documents that Joselito executed in favor of petitioners, records show that Joselito’s two (2) previous complaints were actually “walk-in settlements,”[53] thus explaining his actions of filing such complaints and eventual motions to dismiss, as well as the execution of release documents, all on the same day. Moreover, petitioners never traversed Cristina’s assertion[54] that the motion to dismiss and release document in connection with Joselito’s second complaint were already signed and executed even before such complaint was filed and that respondent InterOrient’s representatives actually accompanied Joselito in filing the same. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55976 5/10