ANITA N.

CANUEL, FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, NAMELY: CHARMAINE,
CHARLENE, AND CHARL SMITH, ALL SURNAMED CANUEL, Petitioners, v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME
CORPORATION, EDUARDO U. MANESE, AND KOTANI SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED, Respondents.
G.R. No. 190161
October 13, 2014
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari the decision and resolution of the court of appeals in dismissing
petitioners’ complaint for death benefits.

Nancing Canuel was hired by respondent (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation) as third assistant engineer for its foreign
principal, respondent Kotani shipmanagement Limited (Kotani) to be deployed on board the vessel M/V north sea for a
period of 12 months with a salary of 640 US dollars. He underwent to a pre-employment medical examination and was
declared fit to work by the company-designated physician.

After a year of work, Nancing met an accident while in the performance of his duty on board the vessel and as a result the
right side of his body was injured.

He was brought to the Shanghai Seamen’s hospital where he was diagnosed to have suffered “bilateral closed traumatic
hemothorax.”

On the same year her was medically repatriated and admitted to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital but his condition worsened
and eventually died.

Nancing’s widow petitioner Anita and in behalf of their children, filed a complaint against respondents seeking to recover
death benefits, death compensation, burial allowance, damages and attorney’s fees.

In their defense, respondents denied liability and claimed that Nancing died of lung cancer and that said illness is not
work-related hence not compensable.

However, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, as the former found that Nancing’s death occurred during the term
of his 12 month employment contract. And that Nancing’s demise was caused by the injury he sustained in an accident
while performing his job, hence his death was a work-related injury.

At odds of the Labor Arbiters ruling, respondents appealed to NLRC. The latter ruled in favor of petitioners and sustained
LA’s decision. In its decision is agrees with petitioners claim that Nancing’s death did not occur during the term of his
employment however it cannot be doubted that his death was brought by the same or similar cause or illness which
caused him to be repatriated.

Dissatisfied, respondent sought for reconsideration but the same was denied.

Aggrieved, respondent then elevate the case to the Court of Appeals. The latter ruled in favor of respondent. Citing in its
decision that that termination of Nancing’s contract is not compensable.

Petitioners sought for reconsideration but was denied by the CA.

Hence the petition.

Issue: WON the CA committed reversible error in holding the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting
petitioners’ complaint for death benefits.

Ruling: Yes. CA committed reversible error. For a claim of death compensation to be valid the following requirements
should be present. First, The Seafarer’s death Should Be Work-related. According to the 2000 POEA-SEC Part A (4) the
term “Work-related death” refers to the seafarer’s death resulting from a work -related injury or illness. Second, the
seafarer’s death should occur during the term of employment.

First, work-related Injury is the resulting disability or death arising our of and in the course of employment. While Work-
related Illness is any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under section
32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.

In this case, records has shown that Nancing’s suffered from a work-related injury within his term of employment.
Nancing’s lung cancer worsened when he attained injury while performing his duties as the assistant engineer at a
cylander number 7 of the vessel and such attained injury during work was the proximate cause of his death. Considering
that the same, uunbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, triggered the following events: Nancing was hospitalize at
the shanghai Seamen’s Hospital where he was diagnosed with “bilateral closed traumatic haemothorax”; he was
repatriated and eventually admitted to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital; and he suffered acute respiratory failure which
declared his immediate cause of death.

Second, the phrase “work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his employment contract” under Part A (1)
of the said provision should not be strictly and literally construed to mean that the seafarer’s work-related death should
have precisely occurred during the term of his employment. Rather, it is enough that the seafarer’s work-related injury
or illness which eventually causes his death should have occurred during the term of his employment.

In this case, it has been established that (a) the seafarer had been suffering from a work-related injury or illness during the
term of his employment, (b) his injury or illness was the cause for his medical repatriation, and (c) it was later determined
that the injury or illness for which he was medically repatriated was the proximate cause of his actual death although the
same occurred after the term of his employment.

Thus, the above-mentioned rule should squarely apply and the present claim for death benefits should be granted.

Note: Compensability does not depend on the injury or disease was pre-existing at the time of the employment but rather if the
disease or injury is work-related or aggravated his condition.