YES. And this is the 3-point story.
Upon passing his medical examination and being declared as fit for sea duty, Ordinary Seaman Ruben Lubes (Ruben) boarded the M/V “TORONTO” on 24 July 2016. In the early part of December 2016, he injured his left ankle while playing basketball with his fellow-seamen in their free time. He was subsequently medically repatriated to the Philippines.
Ruben underwent surgery and physical therapy sessions with a Rehab Clinic for 49 times. He then consulted an independent physician who declared him unfit for sea duty.
He asked his Manning Agency (MA) to pay his disability benefits. But the MA refused. Hence, Ruben filed a complaint before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Ruben finding his disability as work-related and granting him permanent and total disability benefits.
On appeal, the NLRC ordered the dismissal of Ruben’s claim for disability benefits as his injury was found not to be work-related.
Then, the CA affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal of Ruben’s complaint. It ruled that the injury was not work-related and therefore not compensable.
But the SC ruled in the following tenor:
“ x x x.
Under the definition of the terms of the POEA SEC, a work related injury is an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment”. Nowhere in this definition is it required that a seafarer must suffer an injury while he or she is actually performing his or her duties. Section 2(A) of the POEA SEC also provides that the employment contract of the seafarer shall be effective until his or her date of arrival at the point of hire upon termination of his or her employment.
x x x.
It is beyond cavil that petitioner’s injury was sustained while his employment contract was still in effect and while he was on board M/V “TORONTO”. Accordingly, he suffered his injury in the course of his employment. This squarely falls within the POEA SEC’s definition of work-related injury.
x x x.”
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, the injury is worthy of compensation.”
I wish to point out that 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.
Next story please. And stay safe.
For questions or comments, email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.
PREVIOUS COLUMN: SC Ruling on Final Medical Assessment of Seafarer
