Pinoy Seafarers’ Rights
Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho
“Aanhin
pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo.” Never mind if the seafarer dies before he receives
compensation. A popular Filipino saying that applies directly to the possible legal effect of ANGKLA’s bill (House
Bill No. 5430) that seeks to delay the execution of the favorable judgment from the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB).
In most cases for disability compensation, some incur huge debts
to sustain their medication while others die before the decision by the Supreme
Court is released. And yet ANGKLA insists that the aim of the bill is “to
balance the interest” of the seafarer and
the employer as “there is little hope of
recovering anything through restitution.” In reality, employers have the legal remedies to recover the
amount, but one cannot reclaim the life of the deceased seafarer.
Worse,
ANGKLA has employed the art of deception in sanitizing the real picture that the seafarers are victims of the employers’
abuses when it authored the Republic Act 10706 , or the Seafarers’ Protection Act. Call it the game of
“blameshifting”, ANGKLA has diverted
attention on labor cases by discrediting the lawyers who ANGKLA accused of having
considerable interest in the seafarer’s monetary benefits.
Lest we forget, seafarers
are forced to go to court because the employers
violated their legal rights first. Every labor dispute is a David and Goliath battle as
it involves two opposing parties: the worker on one side and
the management on the other, for monetary
claims for disability and death benefits, illegal dismissal as well as
unpaid or underpayment of salaries and wages
In illegal
dismissal cases, the POEA contract
requires compliance with two basic
requirements for a lawful dismissal: a just or authorized case as prescribed by
law (substantive requirement), and observance of due process. Many are sent
home due to unfounded accusations and without the proper notices given.
Away from his family and working on board vessels sailing
non-stop for weeks or months the world’s oceans, he is mentally and emotionally
stressed. Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant
weather changes of extreme hot and cold as the ships cross ocean boundaries,
not to mention harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed,
injured or ill are high.
As if working under these difficult
conditions are not enough, when he sustains injury, illness or lose his life,
seldom does he receive full compensation provided under the law due to company’s legal maneuverings by using the POEA contract that contains terms and conditions formulated more
favorable to his employer and is littered with ambiguous provisions,
generalizations, technicalities that he does not understand.
In many instances, he signs Receipt and Quitclaim documents
thereby releasing his employers from all
claims, demands and causes of action without even understanding their contents.
Oftentimes, he is misled into accepting an ex-gratia, miniscule
amount, in the guise that his condition is either not work-connected, or for
any other reason for which he does not comprehend. Compensation
claims are either denied or downgraded due to
the biased medical opinion of the company designated physician.
More often than not, he knows that he is being cheated of
his rights, but how can he question his employer in these instances, without
the assistance of competent lawyer of his own choosing?
Instead of addressing the above issues by giving seafarers
more access in compensation benefits, R.A. No. 10706 will restricts his option of an avenue to avail of legal
services of competent lawyers, which he can voluntarily enter into, are
therefore, antagonistic to his
interests, rendering him defenseless against the abuses of his employers. They will, in effect, obstruct the effective
and efficient administration of justice.
Seafarers should not be deceived by the misleading
projection of the law which employed the
“scare tactic” to discourage seafarers from engaging the legal services of
lawyers by depicting the latter as vultures. By charging even eleven percent
(11%) of the amount recoverable, or one percent higher than the ten percent
(10%) limit, is not “abusive” per legal
practice standard. Yet, ANGKLA used as “papogi” points its deceptive concern
towards the seafarers. In the end, the legislative act intends to protect
business interest from the cases filed by seafarers deprived of their rights
under contract and the law rather than give more access to the seafarers for
rightful compensation.
When a seafarer is forced to go
to engage the services of a lawyer, employers do not hesitate to harness its immense resources
to escape from or limit its liability. However, when he wins, the
employer, in order give a semblance of sympathy, will use the Seafarer’s
Protection Act to say “I care for you. Your lawyer should get only ten percent.” Ironically, ANGKLA’s escrow bill is anti-seafarer since it is a dilatory tactic wherein he will not immediately get what is rightfully
due to him. Never mind if the seafarer dies before the decision, as long as the
employer’s interest is also protected by ANGKLA’s escrow bill.
Without any leverage in prosecuting his monetary claims,
chances are, he bows to the demand of his employer to either drop his claim or
accept a small settlement. If he has
enough pride and heart, and there are only a few who fall in this category, his
only recourse is the exercise of his right, guaranteed by the due process
clause of our Constitution, to engage the legal services of attorneys of his
choice. With good, experienced,
professional lawyers, he will be able to prosecute his monetary claim in a
level playing field.
It
is election time again. Be critical of the real colors.
Atty.
Dennis R. Gorecho is a graduate of UP College of Law Philippines
No comments:
Post a Comment