Saturday, October 25, 2008 Seafarer's death benefits By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
ANTHONY Allas, a seafarer, was employed by petitioner Klaveness Maritime Agency Inc. in various capacities under different contracts of employment from June 4, 1990 to Sept. 20, 1999.
While abroad one of the petitioner’s ships, he experienced painful urination. It was later discovered that he had urinary bladder cancer. He died on March 5, 2001. His heirs filed a complaint for death and compensation benefits under the Philippine Overseas Workers Administration standard employment contract. Did it prosper?
Ruling: No.
This Court, in Gau Sheng Phils. Inc. v. Joaquin, Hermogenes v. Osco Shipping Services Inc., and Prudential Shipping and Management Corp. v. Sta. Rita, declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract.
However, if the seaman dies after the termination of his contract of employment, his beneficiaries are not entitled to the death benefits enumerated above.
It is, therefore, error on the part of the Court of Appeals to declare that xxx Section 20(A)4 should be read to mean that “it is sufficient that the illness which led to the death occurred during the term of the employment contract.” It is an interpretation clearly not in accord with the decisions of this Court.
The deceased’s last contract with petitioners was finished uneventfully on Sept. 20, 1999. He died on March 5, 2001, one-and-a-half years after the termination of his employment. His heirs, therefore, are not entitled to death benefits under the Standard Contract. (Klaveness Maritime Agency Inc. et al. vs. Cheryl Z. Allas, G.R. 16850, Jan. 28, 2008).
