The Supreme Court held that the death of a seafarer due to lung cancer is compensable as work-related, even if the death occurred after the employment contract ended, provided there’s a substantial link between the illness and the work conditions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of proving causation between the seafarer’s work environment and the development of the illness, reinforcing the seafarer’s right to claim death benefits. The case clarifies the application of the POEA-SEC in determining work-related illnesses and employers’ responsibilities.

From the High Seas to the Courtroom: Can a Seafarer’s Lung Cancer Be a Work-Related Death?

This case revolves around Timoteo Gavina, a seafarer who worked as a fitter for Jebsen Maritime Inc. After 34 years at sea, Timoteo was repatriated due to persistent cough and breathing difficulties. He was later diagnosed with lung cancer and eventually passed away. His heirs sought death benefits, arguing that Timoteo’s lung cancer was work-related due to his exposure to iron dust, diesel fumes, and other toxic substances during his employment. The petitioners, Jebsen Maritime Inc., contested the claim, asserting that Timoteo’s lung cancer was not work-related and that he failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of the POEA-SEC. The central legal question is whether Timoteo’s lung cancer can be considered a work-related illness, entitling his heirs to death benefits.

The Supreme Court, in resolving this issue, emphasized the importance of establishing a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness and the working conditions. The Court referred to Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC, which stipulates that in case of work-related death of the seafarer during the term of the contract, the employer shall pay death benefits to the beneficiaries. In this regard:

In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his 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 Court emphasized the need for substantial evidence to prove that the seafarer’s death was work-related and occurred during the term of employment. The POEA-SEC does not explicitly define “work-related death,” but it is understood to mean death resulting from work-related injury or illness. In this context, the disputable presumption that illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are work-related was reaffirmed, placing the burden on the employer to disprove the connection.

Building on this principle, the Court cited Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, which outlines the conditions for determining whether a seafarer’s illness is work-related. These conditions include the involvement of the seafarer’s work with the described risks, the contraction of the disease as a result of exposure to those risks, the timing of the disease contraction within a reasonable period of exposure, and the absence of notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. It’s vital to consider these factors in assessing the validity of claims for work-related illnesses.

The Court also referenced the case of Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., Fred Olsen Lines and Mendoza, highlighting that the employment need not be the sole reason for the illness. It suffices that there is a reasonable link between the disease and the work, leading to a rational conclusion that the work may have contributed to the illness. Thus:

Settled is the rule that for an illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.

In Timoteo’s case, the Court found sufficient evidence to support the claim that his lung cancer was work-related. It was established that his work as a fitter exposed him to iron dust, diesel fumes, and other toxic substances over a period of more than 30 years. The Court also considered a study indicating increased risks of lung cancer with cumulative exposure to iron and welding fumes. Even the company-designated physician acknowledged that exposure to carcinogens could contribute to lung cancer.

The petitioners argued that Timoteo was a heavy smoker, suggesting that smoking was the primary cause of his lung cancer. However, the Court gave little weight to the certification presented by the petitioners, as it could not be conclusively determined whether Timoteo consumed the claimed amount of cigarettes within the stated period. The Court emphasized that even if smoking was a contributing factor, the fact that Timoteo’s work conditions also contributed to the development of lung cancer could not be discounted.

Concerning the award of medical expenses, the Court cited Section 20-A-2 of the POEA-SEC, which mandates the employer to provide medical attention to the seafarer after repatriation if required due to work-related injury or illness. Since the petitioners failed to provide the necessary medical attention, and Timoteo’s family shouldered the expenses, reimbursement was deemed proper. However, the Court recomputed the medical expenses based on the presented receipts, adjusting the amount to P309,156.93.

The Court also upheld the award of moral and exemplary damages, finding that the petitioners acted in bad faith by not extending disability benefits to Timoteo after his check-up. Bad faith was defined as involving a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, indicating a breach of a known duty with some motive or ill will. Exemplary damages were awarded to discourage other employers from evading liability. Finally, the award of attorney’s fees was deemed proper, as the respondent was compelled to incur expenses to protect his interests. Attorney’s fees are recoverable in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the seafarer’s death due to lung cancer could be considered work-related, entitling his heirs to death benefits under the POEA-SEC, despite the death occurring after the employment contract ended. The court examined the causal link between the seafarer’s work environment and his illness.
What does POEA-SEC stand for?	POEA-SEC stands for Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract. It is a standard contract that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers, outlining the terms and conditions of their work.
What is Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC?	Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC specifies the death benefits to be paid to the beneficiaries of a seafarer in case of work-related death during the term of their contract. It includes a specific amount in US dollars and additional amounts for each child.
What evidence did the Court consider to determine if the illness was work-related?	The Court considered evidence such as the seafarer’s exposure to iron dust, diesel fumes, and other toxic substances during his work. It also took into account medical certificates and studies linking such exposures to lung cancer.
What is the significance of the ‘disputable presumption’ in this case?	The ‘disputable presumption’ means that illnesses not explicitly listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are presumed to be work-related. This shifts the burden to the employer to prove that the illness is not work-related.
Why was the award of medical expenses recomputed?	The award of medical expenses was recomputed because the Court reviewed the receipts presented by the respondent and adjusted the amount to reflect the actual expenses incurred and properly documented. This ensures accurate reimbursement.
What constitutes ‘bad faith’ in the context of this case?	‘Bad faith’ in this context refers to the employer’s dishonest purpose or moral obliquity in failing to extend disability benefits to the seafarer after his check-up. It suggests a deliberate breach of duty, justifying the award of moral damages.
What is the purpose of awarding exemplary damages?	Exemplary damages are awarded to set an example and discourage other employers from evading their liabilities. It serves as a corrective measure for the public good, in addition to compensating the aggrieved party.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of establishing a clear connection between a seafarer’s work environment and the development of an illness, even if symptoms manifest after the employment contract has ended. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the protections afforded to seafarers under the POEA-SEC and emphasizes employers’ responsibilities in providing medical care and compensation for work-related illnesses.

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: Jebsen Maritime Inc. v. Gavina, G.R. No. 199052, June 26, 2019