"Claim for death benefit is compensable when caused by an illness that is contracted in the course of employment. There is no need to show that the illness is work-related. It is enough that it occurred during the term of their contract."
 |
| thebluediamondgallery.com |
FACTS:
Joselito Candava was hired as a seafarer by Inter-Orient Maritime, Inc. for its foreign client, Tankoil Carrier Ltd. He was then deployed for a 9 months contract. Despite the expiration of his contract, he continued working at the vessel. One day, he experienced severe abdominal pain and then underwent 2 surgical procedures.He was then repatriated to the Philippines. Upon examination of the company physician, he was declared fit to work. However, his application to work again was rejected by the petitioner.
Joselito then filed a complaint on sickness wages and reimbursement of medical expenses before the NLRC. He signed a quitclaim upon payment to him the amount of P29,813.40 by the petitioner. A month later, he was diagnosed with tumor and lung carcinoma, which caused him to file another complaint for medical benefits. He then signed a quitclaim upon receipt of the amount of P77,000 from the petitioner.
Few months later, Joselito passed away with the antecedent cause of death was respiratory failure and pulmonary metastasis. His wife, respondent Cristina Candava then filed a death benefit claim from the petitioner. Petitioner, however, claimed that it already paid Joselito before and refused to give the death benefit.
This prompted the respondent to file a claim for death benefit before the NLRC with the allegation that while Joselito was not coerced to sign the quitclaim, his condition forced him to sign the same because he needs the money for treatment. She further claimed that the illness of her husband was contracted during his employment with the petitioner, thus, he is entitled to death benefits, burial assistance, damages and attorney's fees.
Petitioner claims that her claim is barred by Res Judicata through the 2 complaints previously filed by Joselito which were already dismissed through his own motion and submitted the release document executed by him.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent stating that the release of Joselito of the petitioner does not bar the rights of his heirs to receive the death benefits. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner paid Joselito before is an acknowledgment that his death is compensable.
This ruling was reversed by the NLRC, however, holding that Joselito did not die during the term of his contract, and his illness was not proven to be work-related. It also ruled that the claim of the respondent is not barred by res judicata due to lack of identity in the cause of action between the claim of Joselito and Cristina. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC. Aggrieved she filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and pointed out that the petitioner failed to rebut the disputable presumption that Joselito's death was work-related. Petitioner thus filed a review before the SC.
ISSUE:
Is Joselito's death compensable?
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement to prove that the death of a seafarer is work-related to be compensable. It is enough to prove that he contracted the illness during the term of his contract. Neither it is required to prove that the working condition increased the risk for him to contract the illness or disease. An injury or accident is deemed to arise in the course of employment when it takes place within the term of employment and at the place where the employee is reasonably may be to perform his duties. The records show that Joselito contracted his illness during the term of his employment and there is a clear causal connection between his illness and death, therefore making his death compensable.
While his contract already expired, but the fact that he remained and continued to render services at the vessel is deemed to be a constructive renewal of his contract. The execution of his quitclaim releasing the petitioner from further liabilities is viewed by the court as a pre-designated scheme to evade payment of disability benefits. When Joselito went to submit the release document to the labor arbiter it was already signed and he was accompanied by the petitioner, adding more to the fact that such execution of the document negates voluntariness.
It has been established that the illness was contracted by Joselito during the period of his employment with the petitioner, therefore making his death compensable.
No comments:
Post a Comment