Philippine Shipping Updates – Manning Industry [download]

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., November 10, 2008

Supreme Court decision denies disability claim based on 120 day Crystal Shipping ruling; rules compensation must be determined by seafarer’s POEA employment contract

(Author’s Note:  The Supreme Court, for the second time, has rejected the 120 day Crystal Shipping decision. In this case, the Court ruled that it is the seafarer’s contract that should determine seafarer’s right to compensation. Seafarer’s contract is the 2000 POEA contract which required work-relation as a condition of compensation.  As seafarer failed to prove work relation on his illness, disability compensation was denied.  The Court ruled Crystal Shipping is not applicable as the factual circumstances are different and the issue in Crystal Shipping is the degree of disability whereas in this case the issue is whether seafarer is fit to work and whether his illness is work-related and/or work-aggravated.  The Court also did not follow the Brion Vergara decision of 240 days but used the POEA contract itself as basis for denial of the claim.)

On 2 September 2002, seafarer Masangcay was employed under the amended 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract.  He was on board for twenty one days when his urine had a reddish discoloration and he had lower abdominal pain.  He was repatriated on 7 October 2002 due to renal stones and renal disease.  He was treated by the company physician.  His treatment lasted from 3 October 2002 to 3 February 2003.  The company-designated physician eventually declared him fit to work.  He reapplied for work but his re-employment was denied.  On 16 October 2003, seafarer consulted his own private physician who declared him with Grade 3 disability (US$39,180).  He filed a complaint for disability benefits.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC awarded seafarer disability benefits of US$39,180.  
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and this was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected seafarer’s argument that since he was unable to work for more than 120 days, he is entitled to total and permanent disability.
The Court ruled the seafarers’ employment must be governed by the terms and conditions of his contract which is the 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract.  Under said contract, seafarer’s illness must be work-related or at least aggravated by employment to be compensable.  Seafarer did not present any proof that his kidney illness was work-related or work-aggravated.  Thus, his illness is not compensable.
The ruling in Crystal Shipping is not applicable in this case as under Crystal Shipping, the issue was the degree of disability of the seafarer.  In that case both the company doctor and the seafarer’s doctor agreed that the seafarer was disabled and the issue was the degree of disability.  In this case, the issue is not the degree of disability but whether the seafarer’s illness is work-related.  In this case, no proof of work-relation was presented and thus seafarer’s illness is not compensable.
Marciano Masangcay vs. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. and Ventnor Navigation, Inc., G.R. No. 172800, Third Division, October 17, 2008, Supreme Court Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, Ponente.

(Attys. Catherine Mangahas and Herbert Tria of Del Rosario & Del Rosario handled for vessel interests)

We quote a pertinent portion of the decision in relation to the use of the POEA contract in determining compensation:
As with all other kinds of worker, the terms and conditions of a seafarer’s employment is governed by the provisions of the contract he signs at the time he is hired.  But unlike that of others, deemed written  in the seafarer’s contract is a set of standard provisions set and implemented by the POEA, called the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which are considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable to the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels.  
The issue of whether Masangcay can legally demand and claim disability benefits from Trans-Global and Ventnor for an illness that became apparent during his contract of employment with the shipping company, is governed by the provisions of the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels; hence, it is said standard terms and conditions which are relevant and need to be construed in the present case.  
Considering that Masangcay was employed on 3 September 2002, it is the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels that is considered appended in his contract of employment and is controlling for purposes of resolving the issue at hand and not the 1996 POEA Revised Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels as alluded by Masangcay.
We further quote a portion of the decision disputing the argument of Crystal Shipping’s 120 day decision:
Masancay (seafarer) asserts that by virtue of our pronouncement in Crystal Shipping, Inv. v. Natividad that “in disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity,” he is entitled to disability benefits under his contract of employment.
We are not persuaded.  Masangcay cannot invoke a single line declared by this Court in another case under a totally different factual context.
The only similarity between the two cases, Crystal Shipping and the present petition is the fact that the seafarers in both have the same personal physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, a cardiologist, who declared them permanently disabled to return to work.  Other than that, the factual circumstances of Crystal Shipping case are poles apart from that attendant to the case at bar.  In the former, there was no question as whether or not the seafarer is entitled to disability benefits as in fact Crystal Shipping, et. al., offered to pay disability benefits.  The only issue therein referred to the degree of disability and impediment grade to which the seafarer was to be classified; or put simply, how much disability benefit was he entitled to.  The seafarer in said case has been employed as a Chief Mate of an ocean-going vessel when he complained of coughing and hoarseness and was later diagnosed with thyroid cancer.  The company-designated physician and seafarer’s physician were both in agreement that the seafarer had been rendered disabled by his illness;  they only differed in their assessments of the degree and the impediment grade of such disability in accordance with the schedule of disability or impediment for injuries suffered and diseases including occupational diseases or illnesses contracted under Sec. 32 of the 1996 POEA Revised Standard Terms and Conditions  Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels.  In contrast, Trans-Global and Ventnor are contesting the right of Masangcay to claim disability benefits as the company-designated physicians have certified the latter fit to return to work, not to mention the fact that he was not suffering from a work-related and/or work-aggravated illness.


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
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 e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; 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

Useful Links

About Us
Attorneys
Practice Areas
Contact Us
Our Gallery
DelRosario PandiPhil
Privacy Policy
Copyright Notice

Send a Message

Your Cart

The cart is empty

Login