Asserting one’s right is not tantamount to insubordination

Asserting one’s right is not tantamount to insubordination in  dismissal cases.  

This was the principle used by the  Supreme Court when it ruled that the seafarer was illegally dismissed in Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. , v. Vicente Chua, Jr.  ( G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017).

While at the port of Mailiao, Taiwan, the seafarer  and his four (4) companions left the vessel for shore leave from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. When they returned at around 11:40 p.m., the ship captain was infuriated. Four days later , the ship captain called  the seafarer  and the others, and were served with a written reprimand regarding the incident. However, they refused to sign and acknowledge receipt of the reprimand and, subsequently, the vessel’s logbook entry on the matter. Thereafter, the seafarer  and the others disembarked and returned to the Philippines.

In their complaint for illegal dismissal, the seafarer stated  that he and his companions returned later than their shore leave because of a problem with their contracted vehicle. They immediately went to the ship’s office to return their passports and documents. However, the ship captain was furious and asked to explain their tardiness. The seafarer  also alleged that they declined to sign the written reprimand for it contained falsehoods.

The  employers argued that seafarer  was dismissed for a just cause since his refusal to sign the written reprimand is a clear act of insubordination and disrespect towards superior officers.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the seafarer  as it noted that the seafarer’s  arguing and misbehaving when he returned after his shore leave was not sufficiently established.

Insubordination or willful disobedience, as a just cause for the dismissal of a seafarer, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the seafarer’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the seafarer, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

A willful or intentional disobedience of such rule, order or instruction justifies dismissal only where such rule, order or instruction is (1) reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently known to the seafarer, and (3) connected with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge.

 By virtue of the POEA contract, the seafarer is indeed bound to obey the lawful commands of the captain of the ship, but only as long as these pertain to his duties.

 The Supreme Court  opined that there is no relevance to the order to sign the documents in the seafarer’s performance of his duty as a seafarer.

The pieces of evidence presented are insufficient to establish that the seafarer’s refusal was characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering his act inconsistent with proper subordination.

The seafarer  had explained that he refused to sign the written reprimand for he maintained that the same contained falsehoods for he maintained that he had an explanation for his late arrival.

In termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal of the employee is for a just or an authorized cause. Failure to dispose of the burden would imply that the dismissal is not lawful.

In order to discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence, which is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, and not based on mere surmises or conjectures

Under the “two-notice rule,” an erring seafarer is given a written notice of the charge against him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself.

Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer.

It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; but just the same, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the findings.

In case of an illegal dismissal, either there is no valid ground or he was not afforded due process under the “two-notice” rule, a seafarer is entitled to receive from his employers his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract not merely his salaries for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term

___

Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, please email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

Moral damages in labor cases

Moral damages are awarded to compensate  employees for mental distress  caused by the manner they were  treated  by their employer in relation to their labor claims.

The employee is entitled to moral damages when the employer acted (a) in bad faith or fraud; (b) in a manner oppressive to labor ; or (c)   in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. 

Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code,  the award of moral damages is anchored on the employee’s  actual  experiences of  physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.

Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the  wrongful act for omission.

No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary as the assessment is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case.

Bad faith  implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

In Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay, Jr. (G.R. No. 206113, November 06, 2017),   the  employer's bad faith is shown by belatedly releasing and submitting the interim disability rating.  It  revealed their intention to leave the claimant  in the dark regarding his future as a seafarer and forced him to seek diagnosis from private physicians.

By withholding such disability rating from the seafarer, he was compelled to seek out opinion from his private doctors thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, and wounded feelings, thus, entitling him to moral damages.

The employers' bad faith was further exacerbated when they tried to invalidate the findings of seafarer's private physicians, for his supposed failure to move for the appointment of a third-party physician as required by the POEA contract , despite their own deliberate concealment of their physician's interim diagnosis from the seafarer  and the labor tribunals.

The same principle was applied in  Orient Hope Agencies, Inc., v. Michael Jara, (G.R. No. 204307, June 06, 2018) where the Supreme Court noted that moral damages would be commensurate to the anxiety and inconvenience suffered by seafarer considering the  manner in which the company dealt with his condition.

The company's  bad faith and disregard of the seafarer's unfortunate plight is  evident when they  submitted the medical report with disability rating and  expressed their willingness to pay disability benefits  only upon the filing of the Position Paper with the labor arbiter. 

In Career Shipmanagement Phils. Inc. vs. E.J. Godinez (GR 2068261, October 2, 2017, the Court said that  the manner in which the seafarer  was dealt with in the proceedings evinces a perverse attempt to evade liability by fabricating evidence and utilizing objectionable and oppressive means and schemes to secure victory.

It  constitutes an affront, the Court noted,  to all honest workingmen earning a living through hard work and risking their lives for their families.

“The Court cringes at the thought, generated by the experience in this proceeding, and in past cases, that, despite all the laws passed and jurisprudence created, to level the playing field for the disadvantaged worker, his plight continues against employers who will stop at nothing to avoid their obligations, by taking advantage at the workers’ weakness, ignorance, financial hardships and other handicaps, or by the cunning of their lawyers,” the Supreme Court said.

 In Cutanda v. Marlow Navigation Phils. (G.R.. No. 219123, September 11, 2017)  moral damages were awarded  because  the company discontinued, in evident bad faith,   the seafarer's much needed rehabilitation treatment for three (3) to six (6) months more, as recommended  by the attending company-designated physician.

 In Bright  Maritime  Corp. vs. Fantonial, (G.R. No. 165935, February 8, 2012) , the employer’s act was tainted with bad faith considering that the seafarer’s  Medical Certificate stated that he was fit to work on the day of his scheduled departure, yet he was not allowed to leave allegedly for medical reasons.

In dismissal cases,  Justice Marvic Leonen noted that moral damages are  appropriate as unemployment "brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. The deprivation of economic compensation caused mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, and wounded feelings” . (Montinola  vs PAL (G.R. No. 198656               September 8, 2014).

 Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, please email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

Seafarers as “fishers of men”

The apostles of Jesus Christ were initially known as “fishers of men” which is  considered as the most important metaphor for evangelism.

According to the gospel last Sunday, Christ first gathered his fishermen-disciples around him who later  disseminated his teachings.

Andrew, Peter, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were fishermen.  The bible relates that Andrew and Peter were fishing, plying their trade when called, and James and John were mending nets with their father. The bible also  states that James and John  weren’t just fishermen, but business owners, along with their father, for they employed others in the business.

Thomas and Philip may have also worked as fishermen, for they were all together and fishing when Jesus appeared to them following his resurrection.

The disciples are simple working people with no great background.   

In  Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero’s ranking of occupations,  owners of cultivated land appear first and fishermen last.

In the ancient world, fishing was a metaphor for two distinct activities: judgment and teaching. 

Water  is a symbol of life as well as a symbol of destruction. To some, the water reference might also be linked to the idea of baptism.

In this case,  Jesus called the disciples  to drag people out from the water of this world where they are drowning in sin. He invited them to abandon the nets and trust themselves totally to the Lord for a new ‘catch’, a new definitive horizon. It might refer to the disciples working to catch souls for Jesus as they had previously caught fish.

When fish leaves water it dies after few hours. However, it receives a new life through the teachings of resurrection.

In the Philippines, Saint Lorenzo Ruiz and San Pedro Calungsod are  two martyrs of the Philippine Catholic Church  who were seafarers and missionaries at the same time before they became saints. 

Ruiz and Calungsod sailed to other countries and died for a mission: “to teach the Good News”.

While  working as a clerk for the Binondo Church, Ruiz was falsely accused of killing a Spaniard. Ruiz sought asylum on board a ship with three Dominican priests and  sailed for Japan.  However, Christians were being persecuted in Japan  by the time Ruiz  had arrived. The missionaries were arrested, thrown into prison, and  endured various cruel methods of torture. Despite his suffering, Ruiz  refused to renounce Christianity and died from eventual blood loss and suffocation. His body was cremated, with the ashes thrown into the sea.

While in Guam, Calungsod preached Christianity to the Chamorro people through catechism, while baptizing infants, children and adults at the risk and expense of being persecuted and eventually murdered.

Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle earlier  acknowledged the role of  seafarers, Filipino mariners in particular, in propagating the teachings of the church, and  not merely major contributors to the country’s economic growth.

Tagle underscored that the pain brought by separation is a sign of  the seafarer’s  love, strength, and faith for the good of his  family and the country.

“Even if you feel pain when you leave your family and your country, that suffering is not a reason for you to be ‘paralyzed,’ but inspire you to strive for more,” said Tagle adding  that their hardships will not weaken them but make them even stronger.

The Philippines is considered as one of the   major supplier of maritime labor globally as it is estimated that there is one Filipino seafarer for every four to five complements on board a vessel at any time.

The estimated 337,502 deployed Filipino seafarers in 2018  remitted  $6.14 billion or around P318.55 billion. The sea-based sector’s remittances comprise at least 22% of the total dollar remittances of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs).

These remittances help spur domestic consumption in the Philippines and a key ingredient in the country’s drive to achieve higher but sustainable growth.

With faith as a weapon, the Filipino saints and  seafarers  sail  with a mission – to be the soldier of change not only in the Philippines but also to the whole world.

***

Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices.  For comments, send  message through email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

Accident at sea

Seafarers work under   a hostile working environment at the sea and no matter how many precautions are taken, accidents are bound to happen resulting to injuries  ranging  from minor to the most gruesome types; some even leading to fatalities.

 In some cases, the dispute arises on the issue whether or not  the seafarer’s disability benefits fall within the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) coverage, which  entails higher amounts than that stated in the POEA contract.

  It  usually provides that a seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident while in the employment of the Company shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the CBA provisions.

A seafarer must present evidence or report that he  suffered the injury  while working on board the vessel during the term of his contract. This is to give the company or insurance authorities the basis for evaluating whether the personal injury in question can be recognized as an occupational injury or disease. 

The Blacks Law Dictionary defines accident as an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated, an unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct.

The Philippine Law Dictionary defines the word accident as that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen.

Accident, in its commonly accepted meaning, or in its ordinary sense, has been defined as “a fortuitous circumstance, event, or happening, an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens x x x. The word may be employed as denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence, that causes injury, loss, suffering or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual course of events.”  (1 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp. 427, 431)

In the case of Carlo F. Sunga v. Virjen Shipping Corporation (April 23, 2014 G.R. No. 198640), the Supreme Court ruled that the seafarer’s injury was the result of the accidental slippage in the handling of the 200-kilogram valve.  While on board, the seafarer had to lift a 200-kilogram globe valve from the lower floor of the engine room to its installing position.  As it was being positioned, one of the oilers lost his grip of the valve, thus, causing its whole weight to crash on the seafarer. 

The Supreme  Court observed that the seafarer did not incur the injury while solely performing his regular duties but an “intervening event transpired,” i.e., when the oiler lost his grip of the valve, which brought upon the injury on the seafarer.  Such an incident cannot be considered foreseeable nor can it be reasonably anticipated. The duty of the seafarer here was not to routinely carry a 200-kilogram valve singlehandedly, but only to change the valve

On the other hand, in NFD International Manning Agents, Inc.  vs. Illescas (September 29, 2010  G.R. No. 183054), the Supreme Court held that the snap on the back of the seafarer  was not an accident, but an injury he sustained from carrying the heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, which injury resulted in his disability.

The injury cannot be said to be the result of an accident, that is, an unlooked for mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the injury resulted from the performance of a duty. Although the seafarer  may not have expected the injury, yet, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can cause back injury, as what happened in this case. Hence, the injury cannot be viewed as unusual under the circumstances, and is not synonymous with the term accident as defined above.

  

In Buenaventura vs. Career Phil.   Shipmgt. (G.R. No. 224127, August 15, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled that the CBA is not applicable since there was neither a report on the ship's logbook nor on the Master's report regarding said incident. The Court disregarded the NLRC’s conclusion that an accident occurred just because a superior labral tear implies an abrupt impact on the shoulder which is merely suggestive of an accident.

 (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Benzene and seafarer’s illnesses

 

The seafarer’s constant exposure to hazards such as chemicals ( including benzene)   and the varying temperature, coupled by stressful tasks in his employment may  cause a seafarer’s medical condition, like leukemia, cancer and goiter. 

Most seafarers live and work under extremely hazardous conditions that can cause serious short-term and long-term damage to their health. In some cases, they are exposed to conditions that can even be fatal. 

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer for illness to be compensable.

It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the seafarer’s disease suffered and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.  ( Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel,  G.R. NO. 195518, March 20, 2013)

Benzene is a widely used chemical and is mainly used as a starting material in making other chemicals, including plastics, lubricants, rubbers, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides

Benzene is a colorless, sweet-smelling chemical used in cargo ships, particularly crude oil vessels.

The seafarers  most affected by benzene are those who perform vessel maintenance and tank cleaning. Benzene can cause a host of medical issues, including immune system damage, cancer, internal bleeding, and leukemia.

The most common way in which seafarers  are exposed to toxic chemicals while on the job is through inhalation. Since benzene tends to evaporate quickly, inhalation can happen without detection. 

Another common way of exposure  is through the skin and eyes, particularly if the chemicals are liquid, gas, or solid. The least common way of chemical exposure is ingestion. However, when ingestion does occur, significant internal damage can occur, such as damage to the throat, mouth and stomach.

In Grieg Philippines  vs. Gonzales (G.R.No.228296, July 26, 2017), the seafarer  was able to establish a reasonable linkage between his job as an Ordinary Seaman and his leukemia. He has submitted his official job description which included removing rust accumulations and refinishing affected areas of the ship with chemicals and paint to retard the oxidation process. This meant that he was frequently exposed to harmful chemicals and cleaning aids which may have contained benzene. The company also miserably failed to dispute the medical finding that the seafarer's leukemia is not hereditary, as his tests reveal no apparent chromosome abnormality.

 

The Supreme Court likewise ruled in Career Phils.  Shipmgt. Inc vs. Serna, (G.R.No.. 172086  December 3, 2012) that the seafarer’s  illness identified as    toxic goiter or thyrotoxicosis was work-related, considering the toxic chemicals such as methanol, phenol, ethanol, benzene, and caustic soda were regularly transported by the company’s ’ tankers. It added that even if  the causes of  the illness  are unknown.  it does not negate the probability, indeed the possibility, that the seafarer’s  toxic goiter was caused by the undisputed work conditions in the  chemical tankers.

In Jessie David vs. OSG Ship Mgt.  (G .R. No. 197205 26 September 2012), the seafarer’s “Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma”, a form of tumor, was considered work-related by the Supreme Court after he  showed that part of his duties as a Third Officer of the crude tanker  involved “overseeing the loading, stowage, securing and unloading of cargoes.”

As a necessary corollary, the seafarer  was frequently exposed to the crude oil that the vessel  was carrying. The chemical components of crude oil include, among others, sulphur, vanadium and arsenic compounds. Hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide may also be encountered while benzene is a naturally occurring chemical in crude oil. It has been regarded that these hazardous chemicals can possibly contribute to the formation of cancerous masses.

(Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Fraudulent misrepresentation of pre-existing illnesses

Honest mistakes on  a pre-existing illness during the pre-employment medical examination (PEME) will not deprive seafarers of their right over disability or death benefits.

The POEA contract  bars the compensability of disability arising from a pre-existing illness when attended by his fraudulent misrepresentation.

The POEA contract  states that “a seafarer who knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall disqualify him from any compensation and benefits.”

In Manansala,  v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc.  (G.R. No. 208314, August 23, 2017),the Supreme Court noted that the contract’s  terminology is carefully calibrated: it does not merely speak of incorrectness,  falsity,  of incompleteness or inexactness, or failure to disclose the truth.  Rather, to negate compensability, it requires fraudulent misrepresentation,  that he  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.

Between the  seafarer and an examining physician, the Supreme Court said that the  latter is in a better position to assess fitness for the rigors of sea duty. Apart from one's literal body, the seafarer’s   only other contribution to a medical examination is a set of responses to questions.

His personal health assessment is based on his amateur opinion, or otherwise unrefined understanding of nuanced medical conditions. In contrast, the PEME procedures are conducted and supervised by professionals with scientific and technical capabilities. Their examinations generate

Ultimately, the Supreme Court said that  it is more appropriate that the examining physician, a trained professional, and not the seafarer, who is a layperson, be faulted for discounting the presence of diseases even after subjecting the seafarer to a series of procedures,  verifiable empirical data, which are then evaluated by a physician.

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 conditions.     

The greater possibility  is that a seafarer's self-assessment of personal medical conditions will fail to capture nuances that can make the difference between fitness and unfitness for work

As laypersons, they do not have the requisite medical knowledge to properly characterize their illnesses.

Even if they are aware of their own medical conditions, they may, in their non professional opinion but still in good faith, be convinced that their conditions are not so severe and that they can manage to perform work aboard a vessel.

Seafarers cannot be held to account under an inordinate standard. The POEA contract takes exception to fraudulent misrepresentation, not to honest mistakes.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he maybe presently taking medication.

The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition (DOHLE-PHILMAN v. Cabanban, 702 SCRA 467). it merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service” and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The “fit to work” declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.(Magsaysay v. NLRC, 616 SCRA 362, 378-379) .

   
 (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Prompt disclosure of a seafarer’s disability assessments

The seafarer must be formally informed of the   final  and definite assessment  of his   medical condition     by the company-designated physician within  the  120/240-day period, otherwise he will be entitled to total permanent disability benefits.

The Supreme Court reprimanded employers in their practice of deliberately concealing or delaying to divulge  to  the seafarers written or verbal information on  the real status of his medical benefits prompting them to file the necessary cases. It is only during the hearings that the written documents  usually surface, often  as attachments in the pleadings.

In the case of Pelagio vs. Philippine Transmarine Corp ( G.R. No. 231773, March 11, 2019), the Supreme Court awarded total permanent disability benefits to  the seafarer  who suffered with lumbar problems as   the employers  did not  explain  the  reasons  for their failure  to  present  the company doctor’s  medical report  at the earliest opportunity.

It was only after the  NLRC rendered an unfavorable decision that the same was presented in their Motion for Reconsideration. The   belated  submission of said document   without  any explanation casts doubt on its credibility especially since it does not appear to be a newly discovered evidence.

Belated submission of evidence may be allowed only if the delay in its presentation is sufficiently justified, the evidence adduced is undeniably material to the cause of a party, and the subject evidence should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be established. The Court ruled that the document does not fall  within the said rule.

The guidelines that govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability benefits was outlined  in the case of Jebsens  Maritime,  Inc.  v.  Rapiz  (G.R. No. 218871,  January   11,2017)

First, the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him.

Second, if the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total.

Third, if the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company designated physician has sufficient justification  to extend the period.

Lastly, if  the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability  becomes permanent  and total, regardless  of any  justification.

The company-designated physician is required  to issue a final and definite assessment  of the seafarer'  disability  rating within  the  aforesaid  120/240-day period;  otherwise,  the  opinions  of the company  and the independent physicians are rendered irrelevant because the seafarer is already conclusively presumed to be suffering from a permanent   and   total   disability,   and   thus,   is   entitled   to   the   benefits under the contract.

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.  Permanent total disability means disablement  to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his  mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.

Probability and not the ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof. The precise medical causation of the illness is not significant, as long as the illness supervened in the course of employment and is reasonably shown to have been either precipitated or aggravated by work condition.

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786