Hebrew 
English 
Philippine Shipping Updates – Manning Industry [Download]
By: Ruben Del Rosario, Managing Director, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., August 30, 2007
This issue contains the following:
Supreme Court upholds evidentiary value of vessel’s logbook; upholds dismissal of Third Officer
Court of Appeals gives credence to company physician; rules that findings of NLRC should be accorded with respect
NLRC denies benefits to seafarer who failed PEME and claimed illness must have occurred in previous employment
Statistics on Voluntary Arbitration
Del Rosario hires four lawyers and five claims handlers
Del Rosario official email addresses
Supreme Court upholds evidentiary value of vessel’s logbook
Seaman (Petitioner) was hired as Third Officer under the Old POEA Standard Employment Contract. He alleged that the Master ordered him to perform hatch stripping, a deck work and that he refused to obey the order. Petitioner was repatriated and he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was dismissed from employment for a valid cause. Part of the Third Officer’s duties is “duties assigned by the Master”. The hatch stripping per Master’s discretion was necessary as the vessel had to prepare for the next cargo which was to be loaded in 12 days. The Master’s order was neither unreasonable nor unlawful.
Further, the court gave weight of evidentiary value of the entry in the logbook. The court said that the ship’s logbook is the official record of a ship’s voyage which its captain is obligated by law to keep. It is where the captain records the decisions he has adopted, a summary of the performance of the vessel, and other daily events. The entries made in the ship’s logbook by a person performing a duty required by law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the logbook.
The Court however awarded nominal damages of P30,000 as due process in the form of two written notices was not observed.
Crislyndon Sadagnot vs. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. and Neptune Shipmanagement Services, Pte, Ltd. of Singapore, G.R. No.152636, August 8,2007, Second Division, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Ponente
Court of Appeals gives credence to company physician; rules that findings of NLRC should be accorded with respect
Petitioner (Seafarer) was hired a Chief Cook under the Old POEA Standard Employment Contract. He suffered unbearable pain in his lower abdomen. He was then diagnosed as having acute renal failure and hypertensive cardio vascular disease. He was repatriated and underwent operation of his prostate. After two (2) months of medical treatment, petitioner was declared fit to work. He then executed Release and Quitclaim amounting to US$1,828.91 as full and final settlement of his claim. Petitioner consulted his own doctor and was found unfit for any type of work. Petitioner then filed complaint for payment of permanent disability benefits.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and ruled that it is the company- designated physician who has the competence and authority to determine fitness or degree of disability where the worker contracted an ailment or injury that is work-connected for purposes of disability compensation under Section 10 (b) Paragraph 2 of the POEA Standard Contract. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The Commission gave more credence to the findings of the company-designated physician who spent almost three (3) months attending to the petitioner as compared to the complainant’s personal doctor who seems to have come up with his diagnosis on the same day that the patient had come to see him.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition. The court finds the findings of the company-designated physician to be more credible. Moreover, the court ruled that it is the company-designated physician who determines the health and fitness of the seamen. Furthermore, the court held that the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are sustained by law and supported by evidence that is substantial in nature. It is well established that “the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like NLRC are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence.” Moreover, the court emphasized that “the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.”
Carlito Alig vs. One Shipping Corp, One Shipping Kabushiki Kaisha and NLRC,. CA-GR-SP-97522, August 2, 2007, Fifth Division, Ponente, Associate Justice Rodrigo Cosico (Attys. Florencio Aquino and Herbert Tria of Del Rosario & Del Rosario handled case for vessel interests).
NLRC denies benefits to seafarer who failed PEME and claimed illness of hypertension and heart enlargement must have occurred in previous employment
Complainant (Seafarer) was hired as an Oiler under the New POEA Standard Employment Contract. He disembarked from the vessel due to finished contract. After three (3) months, he underwent PEME for possible new assignment. However, he was diagnosed to be suffering from essential hypertension and heart enlargement. Complainant filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefit alleging that his illness must have occurred in his previous employment. The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered decision in favor of the complainant and declared that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00.
The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision and ruled that complainant disembarked from the vessel, not for any illness or injury, but due to completion of his employment contract. Moreover, records failed to show that the complainant got sick while on board and that there was no evidence presented to support complainant’s assertion that he fell ill while on board the vessel. The office dismissed the complaint. However, due to humanitarian reasons, since complainant had worked with the respondents for more than twelve (12) years, he was deemed entitled to financial assistance amounting to P100, 000 (about US$2,000).
Nicanor Silva vs. NYK-Fil Ship Management etc. al., NLRC-NCR-05-07-01608-00, NLRC CA 048841-06, July 3, 2007, NLRC Comm. Tito Genilo, Ponente (Attys. Florencio Aquino and Herbert Tria of Del Rosario & Del Rosario handled case for vessel interests).
Statistics on Voluntary Arbitration
The National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor has released statistics on maritime voluntary arbitration cases filed with them.
From June 2002 to August 2, 2007, 75 cases were heard by maritime voluntary arbitrators. All cases filed before 2006 have been decided. Of the 57 cases filed in 2006, 47 have been decided while 10 are still pending decision. In 2007, 18 cases have so far been filed, 2 of which have been decided. The number of maritime voluntary arbitration cases has been increasing as seafarers and manning agents become more familiar with the voluntary arbitration system of settling disputes.
Voluntary arbitration has the distinct advantage of having the parties choose their own arbitrators. Disputes tend to be decided faster. Arbitrators also tend to exercise more restraint in execution of decisions preferring to wait for the case to be decided by the higher courts. Also, no bond is required to appeal to the higher court.
Del Rosario hires four lawyers and five claims handlers
To keep up with increasing demand for its services, Del Rosario & Del Rosario has hired four lawyers, namely, Gina Guinto, Juris Doctor of Laws, Ateneo de Manila University; Raya Peneyra, Juris Doctor of Laws, Ateneo de Manila University; Jonathan Mangundayao, Bachelor of Laws, San Beda College of Law and Laurice Esteban, Juris Doctor of Laws, Ateneo de Manila University.
Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc. has also added the following: Jay Arthur Del Rosario, Management, San Beda College Alabang; Dodgie Garcia, AB Humanities Management, University of Asia and the Pacific; Mark de los Reyes, BA Management and Computer Engineering, Technological University of the Philippines; Abigail Manacop, BS Computer Science, STI College; and Evelyn Francisco, BSC Management, Polytechnic University of the Philippines.
Del Rosario official email addresses
Please be advised that the official email addresses of Del Rosario & Del Rosario and Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc. are:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Any other email address is not sanctioned / authorized by the managing partners and directors of Del Rosario.
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 e-mail 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
Contact Details
mail@delrosariolaw.com
mail@delrosario-pandiphil.com
Telephone: +63 2 5317 7888, +63 2 8810 1791 Fax: 63 2 5317 7890 24/7
Mobile: 63 917 830 8384
mail@delrosario-pandiphil.com
Telephone: +63 2 5317 7888, +63 2 8810 1791 Fax: 63 2 5317 7890 24/7
Mobile: 63 917 830 8384