Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc.,  November 7, 2016  (Issue 2016/12)]

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario is more or less unrivalled when it comes to maritime work in the Philippines” from Asia-Pacific, The Legal 500, 2014, p. 497

Supreme Court rules schizophrenia to be work-related; clarifies that third doctor rule applies only to questions on “fit to work” and “disability grading” and not on “work-relation”

The seafarer had been employed by the company as ordinary seaman for three contracts.  On his fourth contract, seafarer was employed as messman due to discovery of his color blindness.  

On the eighth month of his employment, seafarer was observed by his fellow crew to be acting strangely.  The Master’s Report noted that seafarer’s behavior changed and he was unable to sleep well.  He was not able to do his daily tasks and exhibited abnormality towards his gestures.  Seafarer was then referred to a shore doctor and was confined in a psychiatric clinic for a month.  Upon repatriation, he was referred by the company to their designated doctor for further evaluation and treatment.

After a series of treatments, seafarer was diagnosed with schizophrenia which was declared by the company-designated doctor to be not work-related as this relates to abnormalities in the structure and chemistry of the brain and appears to have strong genetic links.  On this basis, the company denied the claim for disability benefits.

Seafarer then filed a complaint with the NLRC arguing that his illness is work-related as it was brought about by his working conditions.  He presented the medical opinion of his personal doctor who stated that his coping abilities were eventually taxed as he was continuously exposed to the adverse situation of repeatedly being at sea for prolonged periods of time and he was not able to handle the stress of being demoted from seaman to messman as a result of the discovery of his color blindness.

The Labor Arbiter denied the claim on the ground that the illness is not work-related.  However, the NLRC held that seaman is entitled to disability benefits holding that while genetics may be a factor, it is unquestionable that the illness was triggered by work.  Such NLRC decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, it was affirmed that the illness of the seaman is compensable.

Schizophrenia proven to be precipitated by work

The Court held that taken together, seafarer’s doctor’s diagnosis and seafarer's previous unremarkable stints as a seaman reasonably support the conclusion that his work environment increased his risk of developing or triggering schizophrenia. As detailed in seafarer’s doctor’s diagnosis, seafarer's demotion to messman appears to be the event that precipitated his mental disorder.  Prior to this, he was able to accomplish his tasks without any issue as an ordinary seaman during his previous contracts.  It was only after he was deployed as messman onboard his last vessel of employment that he began experiencing sleep interruptions and started having persecutory delusions, ultimately leading to the erratic behavior detailed in the Master’s Report.  Applying the standard of substantial evidence,  the Court found the explanation that seafarer’s prolonged stint at sea eventually taxed his coping abilities which rendered him incapable of handling the stress of being demoted to be reasonable and highly probable.

The findings of seafarer’s doctor over the findings of the company-designated doctor

The Court held that while there are instances when it sided with the company-designated physician, there are also cases when the opposite finding was upheld. As had been already categorically stated, courts are not bound by the assessment of the company-designated physician and the seafarer is given the freedom of choosing his own medical specialist. And in case of conflict, the determination of which diagnosis should prevail would primarily depend on the attendant facts and expertise of the physicians and the Court is not precluded from awarding disability benefits on the basis of the medical opinion of the seafarer's physician.  To create a sweeping rule that the findings of the company-designated physicians are conclusive would do great injustice to the constitutional protection afforded to laborers.

The reason behind previous rulings that favor the findings of company-designated physicians is not because they are infallible; rather, it is because of the assumption that they have closely monitored and actually treated the seafarer and are therefore in a better position to form an accurate diagnosis. In cases where the seafarer's own physician had a similar opportunity to observe and treat the seafarer, the assumption no longer holds, and the conflicting opinions stand in equipoise. In such instances, tribunals should closely scrutinize the conflicting medical findings.

Applying the above to the present case, the Court noted that while it was the company-designated physician who first treated the seafarer, seafarer’s doctor also had the opportunity to study and observe the seafarer.  The finding of the seafarer’s doctor were given more credence as it explained the development of the illness and the factors which precipitated the same as compared to the blanket statement of the company-designated doctor that the illness is not work-related.

Third doctor procedure clarified

The Court found it necessary to clarify the third doctor rule they have propounded in their previous cases in order to avoid confusion in the application of the POEA-SEC.  

Under Section 20 (B) (3) of the POEA-SEC, referral to a third physician in case of contrasting medical opinions (between the company-designated physician and the seafarer-appointed physician) is a mandatory procedure that must be expressly requested by the seafarer.  As a consequence of the provision, the company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another physician, unless the seafarer signifies his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third physician.

It has now been clarified that Section 20 (B) (3) refers only to the declaration of fitness to work or the degree of disability.  It does not cover the determination of whether the disability is work-related. The Court held that there is nothing in the POEA-SEC which mandates that the opinion of the company-designated physician regarding work-relation should prevail or that the determination of such relation be submitted to a third physician.

Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. and World Marine Panama S.A. vs .Eduardo Obrero and Mercedita Obrero, G.R. No. 192754, September 7, 2016; Third Division, Associate Justice Francis Jardaleza, ponente  (Attys. Herbert Tria and Catherine Mangahas of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)

--------------------

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario is more or less unrivalled when it comes to maritime work in the Philippines” from Asia-Pacific, The Legal 500, 2014, p. 497

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario is often first port of call for employment law within the maritime industry, where it represents shipowners, agents, insurers and port owners.” Asia-Pacific, The Legal 500, 2014, p. 494

“Offers comprehensive shipping expertise. Maintains an excellent reputation for representing P&I firms and handling collision and crew casualties.  A strong team that is well known in the market.” Chambers Asia Pacific, 2014 p. 949

---------------------------

Social Networking Sites

  Twitter ID: delrosariopandi    Facebook Page: DelRosarioLaw  

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.