CLAVENES MARITIME AGENCY INC VS BENEFICIARIES OF THE LATE ANTHONY ALIAS

FACTS: Anthony Allas (the deceased) was employed by petitioner Claveness Maritime Agency under different contracts
of employment from June 4, 1990 to September 20, 1999. During the term of his employment he suffered painful
urination, exhibiting traces of blood. The company-designated physician suspected that there was an infection in the
urinary tract and he was given prescription. After the completion of his contract, the deceased sought a second opinion
from another physician and was diagnosed with bladder cancer. He underwent surgery and three months after he
sought another deployment from the petitioner, however he was declared medically unfit by the company-designated
physician and was refused employment. He died on March 2001, leaving behind a wife and two minor children. The
deceased heirs, respondents, then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for death and compensation benefits under
the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The respondent
then appealed the case to the NLRC which has affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision on the grounds that the death of
Alias did not occur during the term of his employment and thus it cannot be compensated under the Standard Contract.
Likewise, it was not shown that his illness was work-related. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals which ruled
in favor of the respondent stating that compensability under the Standard Contract should be understood to cover an
illness which led to the death of a seafarer occurring during the term of the employment contract, and should not be
limited to death occurring during the term of his employment alone. Petitioner then contends that it is erroneous for the
CA to reverse the decision of NLRC because (1) the decision was supported by substantial evidence (2) Standard Contract
provides benefits only to death occurring during the term of contract (3) deceased failed to inform superiors about the
pain he was suffering while he was aboard and thus he was not diagnosed properly (3) failure of the respondent to
produce evidence that the cancer was work-connected.

ISSUE: Does the death of a seafarer after the term of his contract entitle his heirs to death benefits under the Standard
Contract?

RULING: No. As provided for by the provisions of Section 20 of the Standard Contract, the employer shall be liable for
compensation and benefits of death in case of work-related death of the seafarer during the term of his contract. The
deceased died one and half years after the termination of his employment thus the heirs are not entitled to death
benefits under the Standard Contract. In addition the respondents were unable to adduce evidence that the deceaseds
work exposed him to the increased risks of acquiring cancer. Neither were they able to prove that his bladder cancer
was acquired during his employment.
JOELSON ILORETA VS PHILIPINNE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS INC and NORBULK SHIPPING UK LTD.

FACTS: Joelson Iloreta (petitioner) was hired by Philippine Transmarine Carriers Inc and Norburk Shipping U.K Ltd
(respondents) as Able Seaman for a period of nine months. He was a member of the Associated Marine Officer and
Seamans Union of the Philippines which had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with respondents. During the
term of his contract, he was diagnosed with a serious heart disease involving life risk. He was then repatriated to the
Philippines and under the care of the designated-company physician; he underwent bypass surgery, all expenses of
which the respondent shouldered in addition to his sickness allowance for 120 days. The company-designated physician,
during his post surgical check up, declared him fit to return to former work with maintenance medication. However,
the petitioner continued to experience pain and dizziness and thus sought for a second opinion from a cardiologist who
diagnosed him with Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease with a Grade IV (68.66%) impediment. He was also declared
unfit to resume work as seaman in any capacity for his illness is considered work-aggravated. The petitioner asked from
the respondent full permanent disability benefits and was refused. A petition was filed at the Labor Arbiter. The parties
later agreed to seek for a third opinion from another cardiologist of the Philippine Heart Center. The third physicians
finding was similar with that of the second finding; his condition is aggravated by his continued employment. The Labor
arbiter awarded the petitioner his total disability compensation (US$ 60,000), according to the provisions of the existing
CBA plus attorneys fees. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision with modification by reducing the award of
attorneys fees. Respondent brought the case to the Court of Appeals. CA affirmed with modification the NLRCs decision
by reducing the disability compensation to US$ 34, 330 in accordance with provisions under the POEA Standard Contract
for Seaman and deleting the award of attorneys fees. The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari faulting the
CA in not upholding (a) the permanent total disability compensation (b) the award on Attorneys fee. Respondents
countered that despite that the petitioners disability is permanent; the same is only partial as the third doctor found
him with only a Grade IV disability of 68.66%.

ISSUE: Is the petitioner entitled to total permanent disability compensation?

RULING: Yes. The petitioner is entitled to total permanent disability compensation. The court applied the Labor Code
concept of permanent total disability to Filipino seafarers since the issue is impressed with public interest. The disability
should be understood not on its medical significance but more on the loss of the earning capacity. As defined under the
Labor Code disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform
any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days except as otherwise provided. A total disability does
not require that the employee be absolutely disabledWhat is necessary is that the injury must be such that the
employee cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom. In disability compensation it is not the injury which is
compensated but rather the incapacity to work resulting to impairment of ones capacity to earn. Petitioner from the
time he was medically repatriated up to the time he filed his complaint was unemployed for almost 11 months. His
disability is considered permanent and total. The third physician, whose findings are final and binding, certified that
petitioner is suffering from life-risk and work-related heart ailment. Under the provisions of the existing CBA, the
petitioners disability rating of 68.66% entitles him to a 100% disability compensation of US$60,000 as correctly
adjudicated by the LA and NLRC.

Digested by: Fevie Anne E. Gador