Dear PAO,

I have a brother who is currently working as a seafarer. He was repatriated last month due to a torn anterior cruciate ligament, which he sustained while playing on board the vessel during a company-sanctioned sports tournament. The injury required surgery and several physical therapy rehabilitation sessions. My brother tried to file for disability benefits, but his employer claimed that his injury was not work-related. Is his employer correct?

Melody

Dear Melody,

Section 115, Rule I, Part IV, in relation to Rule II, Part II, of the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers provides that the minimum terms and conditions of employment of seafarers shall be governed by the standard employment contract prescribed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (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 one’s duties.

There is no question 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 is an incident of employment.The Supreme Court enunciated this doctrine in the case of Oscares vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. (G.R. No. 245858, 02 December 2020, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang):

“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.

“In this case, Oscares’ act of singing can be considered necessary to his health and comfort while on board the vessel. He incurred his injury while he was performing this act. Oscares neither willfully injured himself nor acted with notorious negligence. Notorious negligence is defined as something more than mere or simple negligence or contributory negligence; it signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal safety.Jumping while singing cannot be considered as a reckless or deliberate act that is unmindful of one’s safety.There is nothing inherently dangerous about jumping while singing. Respondents themselves did not allege that Oscares intentionally injured himself or was negligent.”

Thus, the employer of your brother is liable for compensation benefits arising from the injury that your brother sustained while playing in a company-sanctioned sports tournament. It is worth noting, however, that not all injuries sustained by a seafarer 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 vs. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc./ Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd. and Preysler (G.R. No. 254586, 10 July 2023, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Samuel H. 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.

“Here, petitioner was merely playing basketball, an employer-sanctioned activity onboard the vessel.It cannot be considered as a reckless or deliberate activity that is unmindful of one’s safety.The records are bereft of any evidence, much less the slightest indication, that the injury suffered by petitioner was intentionally or negligently incurred.Thus, his injury is worthy of compensation.”

Although a seafarer cannot claim compensation benefits for injuries, incapacities, disabilities, or death resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, the shipping company bears the burden of proving that the injury or death sustained by the seafarer was a result of his willful or deliberate act.Failure to do so would redound in favor of the seafarer’s right to claim compensation.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely 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 forChief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]