cdn mobile

 Post-contract death and medical records on board the vessel 

By: ATTY. DENNIS R. GORECHO January 30,2019 - 07:00 AM



A seafarer’s  illness which caused his post-repatriation death must be properly  documented  during the term of his contract in relation to death compensation benefits.

As a general rule, the death of the seafarer  should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract in order for the employer to be  liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits.

Under the  POEA approved employment contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. The amount usually is higher if the death is covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

In Medline Management, Inc. vs. Gliceria Roslinda  (September 15, 2010,  G.R. No. 168715) , the  Supreme Court dismissed the claims for death benefits because  there is no evidence to show that the seafarer’s  illness was acquired during the term of his employment with the company.

 The seafarer’s contract of employment ceased when he was discharged on January 20, 2000, after having completed his contract. He died on August 27, 2001 or one year, seven months and seven days after the expiration of his contract.

The seafarer   did not die while he was under the employ of his employers. The heirs admitted that the seafarer  was discharged not because of any illness but due to the expiration of his employment contract,  Although they stated that  was hospitalized on August 28, 1999, or five months before his contract expired, they presented no proof to support this allegation. Instead, what the heirs  presented were the Medical Certificates  attesting to the fact that  the seafarer  consulted a doctor  complaining of abdominal distention three months after his repatriation.

The Court noted that this is  not substantial evidence to prove that the seafarer’s  illness which caused his death was contracted during the term of his contract. There should be proper documentation of the seafarer’s medical condition while he is on board the vessel.

The Court stressed that the death of a seafarer  several months after his repatriation for illness does not necessarily mean that: a) the seafarer  died of the same illness; b) his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death; and c) the death is compensable, unless there is some reasonable basis to support otherwise.

The  Court noted that  the seafarer  was repatriated not because of any illness but because his contract of employment expired. There is likewise no proof that he contracted his illness during the term of his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death.

The Supreme Court  ruled in  later  case that while it is true that a medical repatriation has the effect of terminating the seafarer’s contract of employment, it is, however, enough that the work-related illness, which eventually becomes the proximate cause of death, occurred while the contract was effective for recovery to be had. (Heirs of the late Edwin Deauna vs.  FilStar Maritime Corp.,  G.R. No. 191563 June 20, 2012)

At the time of the seafarer’ s death on April 13, 2006 due to Glioblastoma, he was still in the employment of the company. While it is true that  the contract considers a seafarer as terminated when he signs off from the vessel due to sickness, a seafarer remains under the company’s employ as long as the former is still entitled to medical assistance and sick pay, and provided that the death which eventually occurs is directly attributable to the sickness which caused the seafarer’s employment to be terminated.

Employing the spirit of liberality, the Court  recognized that a medical repatriation case constitutes an exception to the second requirement under Section 20 (A) (1) of the POEA contract, i.e., that the seafarer’s death had occurred during the term of his employment, in view of the terminative consequences of a medical repatriation.

 In essence, the Court held that under such circumstance, the work-related death need not precisely occur during the term of his employment as it is enough that the seafarer’s work-related injury or illness which eventually causes his death had occurred during the term of his employment.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

TAGS: CDN Digital opinion, column, columnist Dennis Gorecho, Pinoy Marino Rights

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.