Practice question
An oiler is required to live aboard during his contract governed by the 2010 POEA-SEC. He is injured in an employer-sanctioned onboard basketball game during free time. The employer denies work-relatedness solely because playing basketball is not listed among an oiler's duties. There is no proved willful or criminal act or intentional breach causing the injury. Which analysis follows Arriesgado?
- The duty list automatically defeats the claim.
- Every sporting injury is compensable even without any employment connection.
- The absence of engine work means the vessel ceases to be accommodation.
- The required onboard residence and sanctioned recreation support work-relatedness under the bunkhouse and personal-comfort principles.
- The doctrine automatically fixes the award at the highest disability grade.
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.