Practice question
A seafarer invokes required shipboard residence in a disability claim governed by the 2010 POEA-SEC. The employer establishes with substantial evidence that the injury directly resulted from the worker's own willful criminal act and proves the causal link. The worker argues that required residence removes all contractual exclusions. Which is correct?
- Required residence overrides every exclusion.
- An injury aboard can never be examined for its cause.
- Only the vessel's flag matters.
- The worker receives maximum benefits reG.R. less of the evidence.
- The bunkhouse rule does not abolish the applicable proven exclusion; required residence is not absolute immunity from it.
Legal references
- Arriesgado v Multinational Maritime, G.R. 275424, April 29 2026, main opinion: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70389
- Arguilles v Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, G.R. 254586, July 10 2023, main opinion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jul2023/gr_254586_2023.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.