Will the heirs of a deceased seafarer be denied of death benefits if he dies after his medical repatriation? The Supreme Court ruled that benefits should be given to the heirs in the case of Racelis vs. United Philippine Lines (GR No. 198408 November 12, 2014)
In the course of his last employment
contract on board the vessel MS Prinsendam,
Rodolfo Racelis experienced
severe pain in his ears and high blood pressure causing him to collapse while
in the performance of his duties. He was
medically repatriated on February
20, 2008 and was later diagnosed to be
suffering from Brainstem (pontine)
Cavernous Malformation. He underwent surgery twice for the said ailment but
developed complications 12 and died on March 2, 2008.
Respondents assert that Rodolfo's
death on March 2, 2008 had occurred beyond the term of his employment,
considering his prior medical repatriation on February 20, 2008 which had the effect
of contract termination. , which had supposedly supervened during the term of
his employment
The Supreme Court ruled 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.
Consistent with the State's avowed
policy to afford full protection to labor as enshrined in Article XIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, the
POEA-Standard Employment Contract (SEC) was designed primarily for the protection and
benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board
ocean-going vessels. As such, it is a standing principle that its provisions
are to be construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in their
favor.
Guided by this principle, the Court recognized that a medical repatriation case
constitutes an exception to the second requirement under Section 20 (A) (1) of
the 2000 POEA-SEC, 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 under Section 18 (B) of the same. 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
The same principle was used by the Supreme Court in the case of LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE EDWIN B. DEAUNA vs. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION ( G.R. No. 191563 June 20, 2012 ) when it ruled that that 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.
The same principle was used by the Supreme Court in the case of LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE EDWIN B. DEAUNA vs. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION ( G.R. No. 191563 June 20, 2012 ) when it ruled that that 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 finds that it would be highly inequitable and even repugnant to the
State's policy on labor to deny heir's claim for death benefits for the mere
technicality triggered by seafarer's prior medical repatriation. Taking all
things into account, the Court reckons that it is by this method of
construction that undue prejudice to the laborer and his heirs may be obviated
and the State policy on labor protection be championed. For if the laborer's
death was brought about (whether fully or partially) by the work he had
harbored for his master's profit, then it is but proper that his demise be
compensated.
Under an 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)
Under an 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)
For comments, please send
email at info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808.
