5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly harassment. The unique condition of working on board a ship empowers the sexual predator and leaves the victim feeling helpless because they are in the same enclosed space. By no means can petitioner's repatriation be considered as voluntary, for he had been pushed against the wall with no other recourse. Hence, he is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract. There are several cases decided by this Court involving seafarers who experienced unfortunate and harsh treatment while onboard a vessel. In Toquero v. Crossworld Marine Services,[100] this Court stated: Respondents' argument that the claim is precluded because the injury is due to the willful acts of another seafarer is also untenable. The POEA Standard Employment Contract disqualifies claims caused by the willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties done by the claimant, not by the assailant. It is highly unjust to preclude a seafarer's disability claim because of the assailant's willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duty. Between the ship owner/manager and the worker, the former is in a better position to ensure the discipline of its workers. Consequently, the law imposes liabilities on employers so that they are burdened with the costs of harm should they fail to take precautions. In economics, this is called internalization, which attributes the consequences and costs of an activity to the party who causes them.[101] (Emphasis supplied) Cabuyoc v. Inter-Orient Navigation Shipmanagement, Inc.[102] involved Cabuyoc, a Messman who "was found to be suffering from nervous breakdown and was declared unfit for work at sea."[103] He was repatriated after two months and 11 days at sea and "filed a complaint before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for nonpayment of overtime pay, hospitalization benefit and sickness allowance."[104] Cabuyoc alleged that he received hostile treatment from the officers on board the ship. In ruling for Cabuyoc, this Court reasoned: Here, petitioner's illness and disability were the direct results of the demands of his shipboard employment contract and the harsh and inhumane treatment of the officers on board the vessel "Olandia." For no justifiable reason, respondents refused to pay their contractual obligations in bad faith. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner's disability is not only physical but mental as well because of the severe depression, mental torture, anguish, embarrassment, anger, sleepless nights and anxiety that befell him. To protect his rights and interest, petitioner was constrained to institute his complaint below and hire the services of an attorney.[105] The present case is unique because the illness involved is a mental health disorder. We should consider the reality that even if petitioner was physically capable of complying https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66544 14/25