The Supreme Court has ruled that for a seafarer’s death after the term of their employment to be compensable as work-related, the claimant must prove a direct link between the seafarer’s work and the illness that caused the death. This connection is crucial, especially when the illness isn’t explicitly listed as an occupational disease. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate that the working conditions contributed to or aggravated the illness, even if a pre-employment medical exam declared the seafarer fit to work.

Beyond the Contract: Can a Seafarer’s Death After Employment Still Be Work-Related?

This case, Flor G. Dayo v. Status Maritime Corporation, revolves around the claim for death benefits by Flor G. Dayo, the wife of Eduardo P. Dayo, a seafarer who died after his employment contract ended. Eduardo was hired as a bosun and, prior to his deployment, was declared fit to work. However, he was later repatriated due to severe pain and weakness, diagnosed with hypertension, and eventually passed away due to cardiopulmonary arrest after his contract expired. The central legal question is whether Eduardo’s death was work-related, entitling his beneficiaries to death benefits, despite occurring after his employment term.

The petitioner, Flor G. Dayo, argued that her husband’s death was a result of a work-related illness, pointing out that Eduardo was certified fit to work before his deployment but was repatriated due to hypertension. She claimed that his illness was contracted onboard the vessel and thus, his death should be compensated, even though it occurred after the term of his contract. She cited Section 20(A) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC) to support her claim.

The respondents, Status Maritime Corporation, contended that Eduardo’s illness, diabetic polyneuropathy secondary to diabetes, was not an occupational disease, and that Flor failed to demonstrate a causal link between Eduardo’s work and his illness. They emphasized that Eduardo’s illness was pre-existing, as he had been suffering from diabetes mellitus and hypertension since the 1990s. The company-designated physician also assessed that Eduardo’s polyneuropathy was not work-related.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Flor, awarding death benefits, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, a reversal that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals cited GSIS v. Valenciano, which states that diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease, and also pointed out that Eduardo died after his contract had ended.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, highlighted that the 2000 POEA SEC defines a work-related illness as “any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.” The court also acknowledged that Section 32 is not exhaustive and that compensation might be possible even if the illness occurred after the employment contract ended. However, it emphasized that the claimant must still prove that the seafarer’s work involved specific risks, that the disease was contracted as a result of exposure to those risks, and that there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer, citing Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Salazar.

Furthermore, the Court recognized, citing Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel, that employment can aggravate a pre-existing condition. However, the crucial factor is proving the causation between the nature of employment and the aggravation of the illness before compensation can be granted. In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how Eduardo’s work as a bosun contributed to the development or aggravation of his diabetes and hypertension, which he already had before his embarkation. The Supreme Court reiterated that a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) does not conclusively prove the seafarer’s state of health prior to deployment, as it is not an exploratory procedure, referencing Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that respondents should not be absolved from liability simply because Eduardo died after his contract ended. The Court stated that it is possible for a work-related illness to progress slowly, resulting in death after the contract’s expiration. In such instances, the POEA SEC should not limit the seafarer’s right to compensation. Quoting the concurring opinion in Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III, the Court acknowledged the possibility of recovering damages for tortious violations on the part of the employer, based on the Civil Code and special laws, independent of the employment contract.

However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to present evidence showing how Eduardo’s diabetes mellitus was aggravated by his work and how this illness caused his death. The court even pointed out that the petitioner’s own allegations, particularly the physician’s finding of a “normal 2D echocardiogram study,” contradicted the claim that Eduardo’s illness and death were work-related. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the death of a seafarer after the expiration of his employment contract was compensable as a work-related illness. The determination hinged on proving a causal link between the seafarer’s work and the illness that led to his death.
What is the POEA SEC?	The POEA SEC stands for the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. It sets the standard terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board ocean-going vessels.
What constitutes a work-related illness under POEA SEC?	Under the 2000 POEA SEC, a work-related illness is any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the contract, with the conditions set therein satisfied. However, the list is not exhaustive.
What must a claimant prove to receive death benefits for an illness not listed as an occupational disease?	The claimant must prove that the seafarer’s work involved specific risks, the disease was contracted as a result of exposure to those risks, the disease was contracted within a period of exposure, and there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Is a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) conclusive evidence of a seafarer’s health?	No, a PEME is not conclusive evidence. It merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea, but it does not necessarily reveal the full state of health of the applicant.
Can a pre-existing illness be considered work-related?	Yes, if the claimant can prove that the nature of the seafarer’s employment aggravated the pre-existing condition. Causation between the employment and the aggravation must be established.
What happens if a seafarer dies after the contract expires?	The beneficiaries may still be entitled to death benefits if they can prove that the death resulted from a work-related illness that developed or was aggravated during the term of employment.
What is the burden of proof in claiming death benefits?	The burden of proof rests on the claimant to show that the illness for which they are claiming benefits is work-related. This requires substantial evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need to establish a clear connection between a seafarer’s work and their illness, especially when claiming death benefits for illnesses manifesting after the employment contract concludes. This ruling underscores the importance of presenting concrete evidence to support claims of work-related causation, as general assertions are insufficient to warrant compensation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Flor G. Dayo v. Status Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 210660, January 21, 2015