4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 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. [19] AB Sy was hired as a seaman on board M/V Chekiang on June 23, 2005 and was found dead on October 1, 2005, with drowning as the cause of death. Notably, at the time of the accident, AB Sy was on shore leave and there was no showing that he was doing an act in relation to his duty as a seaman or engaged in the performance of any act incidental thereto. It was not also established that, at the time of the accident, he was doing work which was ordered by his superior ship officers to be done for the advancement of his employer's interest. On the contrary, it was established that he was on shore leave when he drowned and because of the 20% alcohol found in his urine upon autopsy of his body, it can be safely presumed that he just came from a personal social function which was not related at all to his job as a seaman. Consequently, his death could not be considered work-related to be compensable. Petitioner argues that AB Sy's death happened in the course of employment, because if not for his employment he could be somewhere else and was not on shore leave; and that he would not be in the riverside of Jakarta, Indonesia and had not answered the call of nature and fell into the river and drowned. We are not persuaded. While AB Sy's employment relationship with respondents did not stop but continues to be in force even when he was on shore leave, their contract clearly provides that it is not enough that death occurred during the term of the employment contract, but must be work-related to be compensable. There is a need to show the connection of AB Sy's death with the performance of his duty as a seaman. As we found, AB Sy was not in the performance of his duty as a seaman, but was doing an act for his own personal benefit at the time of the accident. The cause of AB Sy's death at the time he was en shore leave, which was drowning, was not brought about by a risk which was only peculiar to his employment as a seaman. In fact, he was in no different circumstance with other people walking along the riverside who might also drown if no due care to one's safety is exercised. Petitioner failed to establish by substantial evidence her right to the entitlement of the benefits provided by law. Petitioner's claim that AB Sy's death was by accident, thus, not willfully done which would negate compensability, has no relevance in this case based on our aforementioned disquisition. While we commiserate with petitioner, we cannot grant her claim for death compensation benefits in the absence of substantial evidence to prove her entitlement thereto, since to do so will cause an injustice to the employer. Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor or Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[20] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55544 6/8