Philippine Shipping Updates – Manning Industry [Download]

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, Managing Director, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., February 21, 2007

This issue contains the following:

Temporary ban on deployment of seafarers to Nigeria stays

Supreme Court rules seafarer’s death one year after the termination of his employment contract is not compensable

NLRC rules seafarer’s disability claim for not being re-hired has no basis

Temporary ban on deployment of seafarers to Nigeria stays 

Despite the release of the 24 seafarers kidnapped in Nigeria, the POEA has not lifted its temporary ban on deployment of overseas contract workers in Nigeria.  The temporary suspension of contract processing and deployment for sea-based workers in Nigeria stays.  The POEA has also clarified those vessels plying to Nigeria as part of its regular route should not allow its Filipino seafarers to disembark and they must remain on board at all times while in Nigeria.

Supreme Court rules seafarer’s death one year after the termination of his employment contract is not compensable
Seafarer was hired as an Oiler under the old POEA Standard Employment Contract. He was initially diagnosed to be suffering from umbilical hernia and was repatriated for further medical evaluation. The company designated physician revealed that he had liver cirrhosis.

On June 20, 2000, seafarer signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work and was paid for his sick wages. On March 18, 2001 or more than a year after his repatriation, seafarer died due to cardiopulmonary arrest with hepatocellular carcinoma as the underlying cause. Seafarer’s wife and their son (respondents) filed a complaint for payment of death benefits, illness allowance, and reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents (claimants) stating that his employment aggravated his affliction.  This was however reversed by the NLRC Commission which ruled that the death occurred a year after his repatriation and thus said death was not during the term of his contract.

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that seafarer’s death due to hepatocellular carcinoma is traceable to liver cirrhosis which was acquired during employment.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and denied the claim for death benefits.

The Court said that seafarer was repatriated for medical reasons on March 8, 2000.   Seafarer’s employment was thus terminated upon his repatriation. Consequently, when seafarer died on March 18, 2001, his employment with the petitioners had long been terminated. Hence, respondent (claimants) are not entitled to receive death benefits under the Contract. Neither are petitioners (vessel interests) liable for sickness allowance since it appears from the records that these had already been paid to respondents.

The Court further held that the death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable. However, “if the seaman dies after the termination of his contract of employment, his beneficiaries are not entitled to the death compensation benefits.”

(Author’s Note:  Seafarer signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work on June 20, 2000 after his treatment by the company physician).

Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation and Zenith Shipping Investment, Ltd.  Vs. Emerlinda Sta. Rita, for herself and in behalf of Rene Sta. Rita, G.R. No.166580, February 8, 2007, Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., Ponente

NLRC rules seafarer’s disability claim for not being re-hired has no basis

Petitioner was hired as Chief Steward under the new POEA Standard Employment Contract. He was repatriated for personal reason. He re-applied to the respondent’s agency for new assignment. His PEME results revealed that he has “dilated left ventricle with global hypokenesia and depressed systolic function; dilated left atrium; mitral aortic screlosis.” He sought services of his personal doctor and was declared unfit to resume sea duties. Also, his doctor reported that his illness is work-related and that his heart problem was caused by the ammonia leakage in the vessel. Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of the petitioner and awarded his permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.

The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The Commission said that from the time of petitioner’s embarkation up to his disembarkation, no instance or instances of any medical incidents were reported. This was attested to by his fellow crewmembers in their signed statement which was attested to by the Master of the vessel. He opted to resign voluntarily after an argument with the ship’s messman and messboy and he was repatriated due to his own volition and not due to medical reason. Furthermore, He did not present himself for post medical examination. He also executed a Release discharging the latter from any and all claims arising from his last employment/deployment.

The finding of his personal doctors finds no relevance. The ammonia leakage blamed by the complainant to have caused his heart ailment was a mere allegation for the respondents had presented proof that no such incident happened while the vessel was in Russia.

The Commission ruled that “in awarding disability benefits, reliance cannot be accorded to the opinion given by the seaman-appointed physician. Litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, deductions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must have to be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof.” Lastly, it is clear that the cause for petitioner’s repatriation was not due to medical reason but personal on his part, this explains why he no longer finds it necessary to submit himself to a post employment medical examination. His ailment was contracted after he had served his employment and this negates the second requirement of illness compensability which states that to be compensable, the illness must have been suffered during the term of the contract.

Arnel Batuyong vs. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., et al.,  NLRC-CA No. 048379-06, December 29, 2006


__________________________________________
This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  For further information, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

This publication is sent from time to time to clients and friends.  To unsubscribe, reply to this email and put "unsubscribe" in the subject.

___________________________________________
Del Rosario & Del Rosario
Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc.
Tel. 63 2 810 1791    Fax 63 2 817 1740
24/7 mobile  63 917 830 8384
www.delrosariolaw.com
www.delrosario-pandiphil.com