Dear PAO,
I have a brother who is currently working as a seafarer. He was repatriated two months ago due to a tibial fracture. He sustained the injury while playing basketball on board the vessel during a company-organized tournament. The injury required surgery. He was also advised to undergo several physical therapy sessions. My brother tried to file for disability benefits; unfortunately, his employer claims that his injury was not work-related, as it was incurred while playing sports. Is the company correct in refusing the disability claim of my brother?
Maria
Dear Maria,
Section 2, Rule IV of Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Order 130, dated June 14, 2013, provides that the terms and conditions of employment of seafarers shall be governed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC). According to the definition of terms in the POEA SEC, a work-related injury is an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” This definition does not explicitly require that a seafarer sustain an injury only while actively performing their duties.
There is no doubt that your brother sustained his injury while his employment contract was still in effect and while he was still aboard the shipping vessel. Therefore, he suffered the injury in the course of his employment, fitting squarely within the POEA SEC’s definition of a work-related injury.
Moreover, under the personal comfort doctrine, acts of personal ministration for the comfort or convenience of the employee are an incident of employment. The Supreme Court enunciated this in the case of Oscares v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. (GR 245858, May 22, 2024, Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr.):
“In the case of Luzon Stevedoring Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, the Court held that ‘acts reasonably necessary to health and comfort of an employee while at work, such as satisfaction of his thirst, hunger, or other physical demands, or protecting himself from excessive cold, are incidental to the employment and injuries sustained in the performance of such acts are compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment.’ Similar to Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co., Luzon Stevedoring Corporation also involves Act No. 3428. Even so, we find that its ruling applies here since Act No. 3428, like the POEA-SEC, also makes personal injury from any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment compensable.”
Thus, the employer of your brother is liable for compensation benefits arising from the injury that your brother sustained while playing in the company-sanctioned sports tournament. It is worth noting, however, that not all injuries sustained by seafarers on board the shipping vessel are compensable. Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC expressly provides:
“D. No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided, however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.”
In the case of Arguilles v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc./Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd. and Preysler (GR 254586, July 10, 2023, Ponente: Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan), the Supreme Court stated that:
“Under this provision, a seafarer is disqualified from receiving disability benefits if the employer proves the following: (1) that the injury, incapacity, or disability is directly attributable to the seafarer; (2) that the seafarer committed a crime or willful breach of duties; and (3) the causation between the injury, incapacity, or disability, and the crime or breach of duties.
“Since it is undisputed that petitioner’s injury happened during the term of his employment, the burden rests upon respondents to prove by substantial evidence that such injury was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. Substantial evidence, to recall, has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.”
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
