Damian, Sherleen Anne A. Nov.

22, 2017
2016-094734 2A

Question 1
Answer:
Yes, Eleazar’s claim is compensable. Despite the fact that there was
diversion present in the case brought by his action of skipping the plane and
opting for land travel, the act is still justified. One of the exceptions to the rule on
compensability of injury is the so called “Going to, coming to doctrine” which is
present when the following requisites are present:

a. The act of the employee of going to, or coming from, the workplace,
must have been a continuing act, that is, he had not been diverted
therefrom by any other activity, and he had not departed from his usual
route to, or from, his workplace; and

b. Re: an employee on a special errand, the special errand must have

been official and in connection with his work

It means regardless of the condition that the injury sustained, which resulted to
temporary total disability, to be compensable must be in the course of work or
work related, such injury is still compensable for the act of travelling or
transportation to and from work is deemed as a continuing act as if the travel
required through such is deemed still under the employer’s responsibility. And the
diversion created was not unreasonable for at the time he was requested to
report back to work there was no direct flights from Palawan to Manila and the
only means of transportation he could take was that of land travel.
Question 2
Answer:

Yes, the death of Dan is compensable for the claim of notorious negligence
is not meritorious. Under Section 6 (6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment
Contract for Filipino Seamen, if the injury, incapacity, disability or death of the
seaman was because of his own doing, no compensation shall be payable. It is
the employer’s duty to ascertain the circumstances surrounding its employee’s
death while the employee was on the course of his work.

In the case, the employer’s evidence is lean, frail and far from convincing,
and that it failed to ascertain the circumstances of Dan’s death. The attempt to
show that Dan committed suicide by presenting his co-employees to assert that
the deceased had problems, cannot successfully evade their liability for death
benefits. The employer wasn’t able to show that the death is attributable to the
seaman. There is the lack of conclusive or credible proof that the worker took his
own life as events surrounding the death of the worker have not been established
with any degree of certainty.

The claim for notorious negligence is unmeritorious considering that no

records were found and reliance was mainly on witness account. Notorious
negligence which signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own
personal safety wasn’t present in the case. There was no showing that Dan
deliberately disregarded his safety as no intention can be seen that he wanted
to end his life because at the time that he committed suicide he was not in proper
mind. The deceased is not in his proper mind when he committed suicide
because two days prior to the incident, he already exhibited unusual behavior
toward his fellow crew members.
Question 3
Answer:

NO, the death of Gil is not compensable. Section 20 of the POEA “Standard
Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers
On-Board Ocean-Going Ships,” provides: No compensation and benefits shall be
payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer
resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided
however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or
death is directly attributable to the seafarer. If suicide is proven, such death is not
compensable.

As shown in the case, he died during the effectivity of his employment

contract. Therefore, it would clearly make the employer liable to pay the heirs of
the deceased of death benefits. However, the employer may be exempt from
liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman’s death was caused by an
injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. According to the medico-
legal physician report, the deceased died of cardiac arrest caused by hanging.
Thus, since petitioners were able to substantially prove that seaman Gil’s death is
directly attributable to his deliberate act of hanging himself, his death, therefore,
is not compensable and his heirs not entitled to any compensation or benefits.

However, it can be defended as work related when the death of Gil can
be proven that such work increases the risk of such illness/death of Gil.

INCREASED RISK:
1. There is increased risk if the illness is caused or precipitated by factors inherent
in the employees' nature of work and working conditions. It does not include
aggravation of a pre-existing illness; and

2. To establish compensability of the claim under the increased risk theory,

the claimant must show proof of work-connection. The degree of proof
required is merely substantial evidence as a reasonable mind may accept
as adequate to support a conclusion;

When such continued employment resulted to the employee’s demise.

Such that Gil underwent rigorous work in that he developed musculoskeletal pain
and also emotional trauma due to family problems which aggravated such state.
Despite all this he wasn’t allowed to be repatriated. All this could have resulted to
depression and the continued refusal to allow him to go back home. All these
factors contributed to the end result of the said employee. Which could be the
defense as to make it compensable to be claimed by the heirs.

Question 4
Answer:

Yes, Nick’s claim is meritorious. The system’s ruling is bereft of merit. For
disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA Standard
Employment Contract, it must be the result of a work-related injury or illness, unlike
the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract in which it was sufficient that the
seafarer suffered injury or illness during the term of his employment. The 2000 POEA
Standard Employment Contract defines "work-related injury" as injury resulting in
disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment" and "work-
related illness.

In the case at hand, as part of his job to check the temperature of the
repair instruments, Nick had to go down and eventually resurface from the
manhole. Such acts are still deemed necessary and part of his job on board the
ship. It is safe to presume that the arduous nature of the respondent's job caused
the respondent's illness. What is required in cases involving employee’s
compensation is substantial evidence which is relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In the case
at bar the casual relationship between the member’s injury and his job as a
seaman can be established by substantial evidence. Nick’s injury took place in
the place of his work while performing his work. He went down the ship through its
manhole to check the temperature of the repair instruments contained. Upon
going up the ladder and alighting from the manhole its cover fell and hit the left
part of his head. The injury was also sustained during his employment.
Question 5
Answer:

YES, the claim of Albert is compensable. To be able to determine whether

an injury suffered in the course of a recreational activity is compensable, we
apply the test whether the recreation was for the employee’s exclusive benefit,
or whether the employer had some interest in the activity. Any injury incurred while
at recreation during a temporary cessation of work, the injury is compensable as
arising out of and in the course of employment where the recreation indulged in
was fostered and encouraged by the employer to the end of efficiency of their
service.

In the case, the basketball game was a recreational activity that is

intended for the physical fitness of the crew. Which is actually in keeping with the
interest of the employer in order for each employee to be able to build up
stamina and to ensure their health and the continued operation of the work whilst
on board the vessel. Therefore it falls under the coverage of PD 626 making it
compensable.