Title
Supreme Court
Dayo vs. Status Maritime Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 210660
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2015
Seafarer Eduardo Dayo died post-contract due to diabetes; court denied death benefits, ruling illness not work-related under POEA terms.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210660)

Facts of the Case

Eduardo was employed for a period of ten months, commencing on June 8, 2008, with a monthly salary of $500. Prior to his embarkation, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was declared fit to work. On September 5, 2008, while onboard the vessel aMV Naftocement 1a, he began suffering severe pain and weakness, which led to his diagnosis of hypertension while receiving medical attention in Barbados. He was repatriated on September 7, 2008, and continued to seek medical assistance upon returning home, which proved limited until he was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus by a company-designated physician in November 2008. Unfortunately, Eduardo passed away from cardiopulmonary arrest on June 11, 2009.

Procedural History

Following Eduardo's death, his wife, Flor, sought death benefits but was met with resistance. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in her favor, awarding benefits including $50,000 for death benefits and $1,000 for burial expenses. Status Maritime Corporation contested this decision, leading to an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the Arbiter's ruling, asserting the absence of merit in Flor's claims. The NLRC's resolution was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals, which ruled that benefits could not be granted since Eduardo died after the contract's expiration and that diabetes mellitus was not recognized as an occupational disease under POEA legislation.

Legal Framework

The Court of Appeals primarily referenced Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions, which explicitly delineates occupational diseases. Eduardo's condition of diabetes mellitus, identified as pre-existing and non-work-related, was not included in this list. There was also a focus on the applicable provisions regarding the compensability of work-related deaths and the burden of proof resting with Flor to establish a causal link between her husband's work and the conditions leading to his death.

Findings of Fact

The Court underscored that substantial evidence to establish a connection between Eduardo’s work and the illnesses leading to his death was lacking. Evidence presented indicated that he was diagnosed with diabetes and hypertension long before his employment aboard the vessel. The examination outcomes indicated no work-induced aggravation, effectively denying the claims for work-related illness and subsequent death benefits.

Conclusion of Appeals

Flor's subsequent appeals, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and disputing the lack of causation between her husband's employm

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.