Philippine Shipping Updates – Manning Industry [download]

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc.,  September 23, 2008

Del Rosario & Del Rosario congratulates Arturo T. Del Rosario Jr., co-Managing Partner, on his election as President of the Philippine Bar Association for the year 2008-2009

This issue contains the following:
Supreme Court denies for lack of merit manning organizations’ intervention in 120 day Remigio case
Habitual smoker with lung cancer denied death benefits; served on board for barely two weeks

Logbook entry must be authenticated if its genuineness is assailed

Miscellaneous notes
--------------------
Supreme Court denies with finality manning organizations’ intervention in 120 day Remigio case

The Supreme Court has denied for lack of merit manning organizations’ Motion for Reconsideration on the earlier denial of its motion for intervention in the 120 day Remigio case.  It may be best for the industry to just wait for another case in which to intervene and have the Supreme Court revisit the issue.  The industry will also consider other moves in order to reverse the 120 day decision.


Habitual smoker with lung cancer denied death benefits; served on board for barely two weeks

Seafarer was hired as Second Engineer.  After barely two weeks on board the vessel, he was repatriated due to lung cancer.  He eventually died and his widow claimed death benefits.

The Supreme Court denied the claim noting that seafarer was on board for only two weeks.  It is unlikely that he acquired his lung cancer in such a short span of time.  His attending doctor had opined that the cause of his lung cancer was his habitual smoking for twenty five years.  

Further, seafarer’s POEA contract requires that death in order to be compensable must occur during the effectivity of the contract.  Seafarer’s death occurred after the effectivity of his contract and his contract ended when he was medically repatriated.  

Seafarer had also argued that vessel interests are estopped from denying his claim as he was declared fit to work in his Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME).  This argument was denied by the Court.  PEME cannot be the basis of seafarer’s medical condition as the PEME is not intended to be an in-depth examination of a seafarer’s health.  The PEME report in fact states that it is not intended to cover diseases requiring special procedure and examination.  Therefore, seafarer’s lung cancer could not have been detected by his PEME.

The Court ended its ruling thus: “while the court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the Standard Contract, the court cannot allow claims for compensation based on surmises. When the evidence presented negates compensability, the court has no choice but to deny the claim, lest the court cause injustice to the employer.”

The Estate of Posedio Ortega, Represented by his wife, Maria C. Ortega vs. The Court of Appeals, St. Vincent Shipping, Inc., and/or Engr. Edwin M. Cristobal; G.R. No. 175005; Second Division; April 30, 2008; Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, Ponente.


Logbook entry must be authenticated if its genuineness is assailed

The Supreme Court generally accepts in evidence mere copies of logbook entries.  In this particular case, the Chief Officer assailed the genuineness of the logbook entries by presenting three other documents which showed the signature of the Master to be different from that of the logbook entry.  The Court ruled that in this particular instance, the logbook entry must be authenticated in order to be acceptable as evidence.

In this particular case, the Chief Officer was dismissed due to lack of job knowledge in tanker operations.  The logbook entry was presented in evidence but this was disregarded by the Court as it was not authenticated.

The Court further noted that due process was not observed in the dismissal.  The Chief Officer was not furnished a written notice of the charges against him, there was no formal investigation of the charges and there was no written notice of the penalty imposed.

The Chief Officer was awarded the unexpired portion of his contract, reimbursement of his placement fee at 12% interest per annum, moral damages of P50,000, exemplary damages of P50,000 and 10% of the aggregate monetary award as attorney’s fees.

Author’s Note:  Authentication of documents requires a consular certification of said documents from a Philippine consulate or embassy.

Centennial Transmarine Inc., Centennial Maritime Services Corporation and/or B+H Equimar Singapore, Pte. Ltd., vs. Ruben G. Dela Cruz; G.R. No.180719; Third Division; August 22, 2008; Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ponente.

Miscellaneous Notes

The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) has released the following circulars:

MARINA CIRCULAR No. 2008-05
“Rules on the Collection of Annual Tonnage Fee”

MARINA CIRCULAR No. 2008-06
“New and Rationalized Fees and Charges”

Text of the circulars may be accessed at:  http://www.marina.gov.ph/
__________________________________________
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
Office Address: 15th Floor, Pacific Star Building, Makati Avenue, 1200 Makati City, Philippines
Telephone: 63 2 810 1791 * Fax: 63 2 817 1740/ 63 2 810 3632
24/7 Emergency Mobile: (63) (917) 830-8384; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; www.delrosario-pandiphil.com