Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

 
  By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 4 May 2018 (Issue 2018/06)
 
Holiday Notice: 

In view of the local elections to be held in the Philippines, our offices will be closed on Monday, 14 May 2018. Emails will be closely monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile

63 917 830 8384

 Supreme Court denies disability benefits as seafarer's knowledge of pre-existing conditions and intent to deceive the employer were established

 Prior to being employed, the seafarer underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME).  In his examination, the seafarer was required to disclose information regarding all existing and prior medical conditions. The examination specifically   required information on 29 illnesses and/or conditions, among which were hypertension and diabetes. The seafarer denied having hypertension and specifically answering "NO" when asked about hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Following his examination, seafarer was declared fit for sea duty and was deployed.
 
While on board the vessel, seafarer suffered a stroke.  He was then admitted to a shore hospital.  Eventually, he was repatriated and referred to the company-designated physician.  While under company-designated doctor’s care, he repeatedly denied that he had any past history of diabetes and hypertension.  After treatment, the company-designated doctor issued a Grade 10 final disability assessment.
 
Not satisfied with the assessment of the company-designated physician, the seafarer filed a Complaint for maximum disability benefits.  He then obtained the opinion of his chosen doctor who stated that he is permanently disabled.  The same opinion indicated that seafarer admitted to having had a long history of hypertension and diabetes. He even admitted to Enalapril and Metformin as maintenance medications.
 
The Labor Arbiter then issued a decision denying the claim for disability benefits because the illness was pre-existing and not work-related.  Such ruling was affirmed by both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.
 
Upon petition with the Supreme Court, the denial of the claim remained.
 
The Court held that Section 20 E of the POEA-SEC bars the compensability of disability arising from a pre-existing illness when attended by a seafarer's fraudulent misrepresentation. The POEA-SEC's terminology is carefully calibrated as it does not merely speak of incorrectness or falsity, or of incompleteness or inexactness. Rather, to negate compensability, it requires fraudulent misrepresentation. To speak of fraudulent misrepresentation is not only to say that a person failed to disclose the truth but that he or she deliberately concealed it for a malicious purpose. To amount to fraudulent misrepresentation, falsity must be coupled with intent to deceive and to profit from that deception. Consequently, reasonable leeway may be extended for inability to make complete and fastidiously accurate accounts when this inability arises from venial human limitation and frailty. This is a normal tendency for laypersons-such as seafarers-rendering accounts of their own medical l conditions.
 
In this case however, the Court found the seafarer to have fraudulently misrepresented himself when he denied having any history of hypertension or diabetes. He did not merely make inaccuracies in good faith but engaged in serial dishonesty.  During his PEME, the seafarer was recorded to have categorically answered “No” when asked whether he has ever suffered from or has been told to have hypertension and diabetes. After repatriation and while being treated by the company-designated physician, he again denied that he had any past history of diabetes and hypertension.  However, in the medical opinion and evaluation prepared by his own doctor, seafarer was indicated to not only have admitted that he had a past history of hypertension and diabetes, but even that he was regularly taking Enalapril and Metformin respectively to treat the said illnesses. Seafarer's assertion is an admission that he fully knew of his conditions at the moment he was examined, rendering it pointless to consider whether he was merely confused at the time of his examination. Additionally, his assertion burdens him with the task of proving his claims. As he was duty-bound to truthfully answer questions during his examination, seafarer must show that despite his knowledge, he did not willfully or deceptively withhold information.
 
The seafarer attempted to extricate himself by disavowing the declarations he made in his PEME and claiming that it was the examining physician who failed to accurately reflect his responses on his examination certificate.
 
The seafarer adequately understood the significance of the declarations attributed to him in his examination certificate. Seafarer's engagement was not his first stint as a seafarer. He had been a seasoned seafarer.  His prolonged seafaring experience must have familiarized him with the conduct of PEMEs and the need for him to give truthful answers. He explicitly declared, too, that he was aware of the contents of Sec 20 E [on misrepresentation] in the POEA-SEC. Certainly, his awareness of Section 20 E of the POEA-SEC must have impressed upon him not only the potential complications of what he claims to be a false declaration allegedly foisted on him by the examining physician but also the urgency of rectifying that error. However, he remained silent and did nothing. Seafarer's concession by omission militates against him.
 
Antonio Manansala vs. Marlow Navigation Phil., Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd./Cyprus, et al., G.R. No.208314, August 23, 2017, Third Division, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, ponente  
 
 Firm News

Del Rosario & Del Rosario lawyers David Valencia and Ralph Villamor took part in the 2018 Skuld School in Hong Kong.  The course was held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel from 11- 12 April 2018.  The course was attended by select representatives from different sectors wishing to add to their knowledge of P&I insurance as well as an overview of the industry.
 
David and Ralph likewise visited the Hong Kong offices of Gard P&I, Steamship Mutual, Swedish Club, West of England, North of England and UKP&I where they had a lively discussion on current trends in Filipino seafarers claims.
 
Our many thanks to all for your gracious hospitality.

2017 AsiaLaw Profiles:  Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution  & Litigation, Insurance, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment
 
“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
 
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.  To subscribe or for further information, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .