G.R. No. 201251; June 26, 2013
INTER-ORIENT MARITIME, INCORPORATED and/or TANKOIL CARRIERS, LIMITED, Petitioners, vs. CRISTINA CANDAVA, Respondent.

FACTS

In January 2002, petitioner Inter-Orient Maritime Incorporated hired Joselito C. Candava as an able-bodied seaman for its foreign principal, Tankoil Carriers Limited. His nine-month contract expired on October 28, 2002, but he continued working until February 2003 due to the unavailability of a replacement. On February 13, 2003, while still aboard the vessel, Joselito complained of abdominal pain and was diagnosed with “direct inguinal hernia strangulated right” and “acute appendicitis.” Medical procedures revealed a tumor in his right inguinal canal that appeared oncogenic. He was repatriated, declared fit to work by the company physician, but his requests for work were rejected.
On March 28, 2003, Joselito, accompanied by Inter-Orient representatives, filed a complaint for sick wages and medical expenses before the NLRC but sought its dismissal on the same day in consideration of ₱29,813.04, executing a release of all rights. A month later, he was diagnosed with suspected malignant cells and later with testicular tumor (cancer), abdominal germ cell tumor, and metastatic carcinoma. On August 11, 2003, again accompanied by Inter-Orient representatives, he filed another complaint for medical benefits but also sought its dismissal on the same day for ₱77,000.00, executing another release. Both complaints were dismissed.
Joselito died on October 9, 2003. The death certificate listed the causes as respiratory failure, pulmonary metastasis, germ cell tumor, and pneumonia. Respondent Cristina Candava, Joselito’s widow, demanded death benefits from petitioners, and upon refusal, filed a complaint before the NLRC. Petitioners argued the complaint was barred by res judicata due to Joselito’s prior complaints and releases.

ISSUE

Whether Joselito Candava’s death is compensable as to entitle respondent Cristina Candava to claim death benefits.

RULING

Yes, Joselito’s death is compensable. The Court, applying the 1996 POEA-SEC (which governed the employment contract), ruled that for death to be compensable, the illness need only be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract, not that it was work-related. Joselito complained of abdominal pain and was diagnosed while aboard the vessel during the extended period of his employment. His subsequent death from germ cell tumor and related complications was a direct result of the illness discovered during his employment, establishing a causal connection.
The Court rejected the defense of res judicata, as there was no identity of causes of action between Joselito’s claims for sickness benefits and Cristina’s claim for death benefits, which accrued only upon Joselito’s death. The releases executed by Joselito did not bar his heirs from claiming death benefits. Furthermore, the Court noted that Joselito’s employment was impliedly renewed. His original contract expired in October 2002, and his work was extended for four months beyond the allowable three-month extension under the POEA-SEC. This created an implied renewal for another nine months, making his death on October 9, 2003, occur within the term of his contract. Therefore, respondent Cristina Candava is entitled to death benefits.