Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc.,  November 18, 2016  (Issue 2016/13)

Del Rosario & Del Rosario is listed No. 1 shipping firm in the Philippines, The Legal 500, Asia-Pacific, 2015, p. 523

Supreme Court rules that failure to prove how injury/illness was suffered during employment is ground for denial of claim for disability benefits; seafarer must submit proof of work-relation

The seafarer was engaged as Chief Cook.  He claims that during his employment, he lost his balance and fell while doing his chores.  His chest hit a trash can but he ignored the pain.  Another incident allegedly happened when he slipped from the ladder and his hip hitting the deck.  He claimed that the incident was reported to the Master and he requested for medical check-up which was not given.

The seafarer finished his contract and before repatriation while he was in Australia, he sought medical consultation with a doctor.   He alleged that the Australian doctor found him to be asymptomatic from the pain that was caused by his accident but his blood pressure was elevated.  He was given maintenance medications.

Upon repatriation, the seafarer alleged that he requested for a medical referral from the manning agents but was not provided any since his termination of employment was due to finished contract.  

About 7 months thereafter, he filed a claim for disability benefits with the NLRC.  He also sought consult with his chosen doctor who diagnosed him with diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, and rib fracture with a grade 7 disability.  He was also declared permanently unfit for sea service.

The company denied the claim as there was no reported incident on-board and that no request for medical assistance was ever forwarded by the seafarer.

The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals all awarded the seafarer with full disability benefits based on the findings of his chosen doctor.  They found the fact that the seafarer was diagnosed in Australia with a medical condition and was certified by his chosen doctor to be unfit substantial evidence to his entitlement to disability benefits.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court found the claim to be wanting in merit.

Work-relation must be established

The Court held that one important doctrine that should be considered in this case is the element of work relatedness between an illness or disability and the seafarer's duties -a relation that is explicitly required under the POEA-SEC.

Here, the seafarer failed to submit proof that his illness was work ¬related. In other words, the evidence on record misses essential facts on how he contracted or developed his illness, and how and why his working conditions aggravated this illness. In the absence of substantial evidence, one cannot just presume that seafarer's job caused his injury or aggravated any pre¬existing condition he might have had.

Substantial evidence to prove accident was not presented

While the seafarer alleged that he met two (2) accidents on board the vessel, these allegations remain unsubstantiated by sufficient evidence. He failed to show that these incidents happened because he did not present any kind of evidence to prove that the accidents occurred at all. There was no record of any medical complaint lodged by the seafarer during his employment on board the vessel. He even claimed that his fellow crewmembers noticed him limping, yet the records do not show any testimony, affidavit, or document that they, indeed, had witnessed such fact.

The only documents on record about the alleged accident were post-medical reports of the seafarer’s rib fracture and the foreign doctor’s initial report when the seafarer came to him for a medical checkup in Australia. These documents only prove the fact that the seafarer told the foreign doctor that his ribs have been hurting for two (2) weeks before he visited him, and that he has an existing rib fracture when he underwent medical examinations in the Philippines. These two facts, taken together are not enough to prove that seafarer met an accident on board the vessel.

Heart ailment not proven to be caused or aggravated by work

As for seafarer’s heart condition, no evidence was presented to show that the condition worsened during his employment. Again, what he presented were post-medical reports about the tests he underwent, the heart medications he was prescribed, and diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension. These reports, however, were issued long after the seafarer had disembarked the vessel. Although he alleged that it was the working conditions he had to undergo ¬i.e., stressful work on board the ship, harsh sea weather conditions, and constant exposure to harmful chemicals and varying changes in temperature -that aggravated his heart condition, seafarer failed to adduce any kind of evidence proving that he was indeed subject to these working conditions.

He also failed to satisfy by substantial evidence the condition laid down in the contract that if the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain brought about by the nature of his work

Seafarer finished his contract

The labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the fact that seafarer was not repatriated for medical reasons.  The Court had frequently recognized the fact of a "finished contract" as the reason for a seafarer's repatriation.  In fact, this circumstance had been used as an indication that the injury or Illness is not work-related.

Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. Stealth Maritime Corporation and Carlos Salinas vs. Casiano Saladas, Jr., G.R. No. 208089, September 28, 2016; Second Division, Associate Justice Arturo Brion, ponente (Atty. Charles Dela Cruz of Del Rosario & Del Rosario handled for vessels interests)

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

Del Rosario & Del Rosario is listed No. 1 shipping firm in the Philippines, The Legal 500, Asia-Pacific, 2015, p. 523

“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.