Supreme Court denies claim for death benefits as seafarer finished and died after his contract; acute myelogenous leukemia not work-related
 
 
The seafarer was engaged as Second Engineer on-board the vessel after having passed his pre-employment medical examination.  It was alleged that during his employment, the seafarer would experience dizziness and nausea, redness of the eyes, purple patches on his skin, bleeding gums, prolonged nosebleed and severe urinary and gastrointestinal hemorrhage which was known to the Master.  Eventually, the seafarer was disembarked due to finished contract and proceeded to take his vacation.
 
The family of the seafarer was then surprised with his bleeding which prompted a consult with the hospital where he was prescribed medicines.  Further consultation and examination revealed he was suffering from acute myelogenous leukemia.  The seafarer died two months after he was repatriated.
 
The heirs of the seafarer then filed a claim for death benefits against the company.  The Labor Arbiter granted the claim but was reversed by the NLRC on appeal.  In the Court of Appeals, the claim was still denied as there was failure on the part of the heirs to prove work-relation of the death and that the seafarer did not undergo the mandatory post-employment medical examination with the company-designated doctor within three days from his arrival.
 
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the denial of the claim was affirmed.
 
The seafarer did not comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination
 
The Court found that the seafarer did not present himself to the company-designated doctor within three days from his arrival. While this rule is not absolute, the heirs failed to show any reason why the seafarer did not report to the company-designated physician within three days from repatriation. If it was true, as alleged, that the seafarer was already experiencing bleeding gums, prolonged nosebleed and severe urinary and gastrointestinal hemorrhage even before his repatriation, then it was imperative for him to report to his employer upon his arrival so that he can be checked by the company-designated physician.
 
To ignore this rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits.  It would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of claimant’s illness considering the passage of time.  In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims.
 
The seafarer’s death is not work-related and did not occur during the term of the contract
 
The Court noted that aside from allegations that the seafarer fell ill during employment, no other evidence was presented by the heirs to prove this.  There was no complaint, medical report or such other relevant document presented regarding the illness of the seafarer contracted during the voyage.  Without any record of illness during his voyage, it is difficult to state that the seafarer acquired or developed his acute myelogenous leukemia during the term of his employment.   
 
Further, the death of the seafarer occurred two months after the expiration of his contract thus there was a failure to comply with the requirement that the death should have occurred during the term of the contract.  The only exception to this rule is when the death occur after the medical repatriation of the employee which is absent in this case because the seafarer was repatriated because of the end of his contract.
 
A. M. (In behalf of the late J. M.) vs. Status Maritime Corporation, Naftotrade Shipping and Commercial S.A. et. al., G.R. No. 227523, August 29, 2018, Second Division, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, ponente (Attys. Denise Cabanos and Richard Sanchez of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
Firm News
 
DelRosarioLaw Senior Partner Joseph Manolo R. Rebano was a speaker at the crew conference of Anglo-Eastern Crew Management last 7 March 2019 entitled “It’s OUR Ship” held at The New World Hotel, Makati City. He spoke on “The P&I Perspective”. Guest of Honors were VADM Narciso A. Vingson Jr. (OIC-MARINA) and Atty. Bernard P. Olalia (POEA Administrator). 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment.

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018.

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018.

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018.