Can
the receipt by a seafarer of an amount less than the sickness wages and
reimbursement of medical expenses he is entitled to be valid? The Honorable Supreme Court categorically
answered this question in the negative in the case of Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. and Asia Maritime Co., Ltd. vs. Gil A.
Flores (646 Phil. 570).
In the cited case, the
seafarer was hired by his employers in April 1997 as Chief Officer to work
onboard a foreign vessel.
Just two months from the time he boarded his ship, he
experienced a shooting pain on his right foot.
After being declared “not fit to work” by the doctor who attended to him
abroad, he was repatriated to the Philippines in June 1997.
His employers’ company-designated physician found him to
be suffering from “large disc herniation with nerve root compression and
edema,” and thus, was recommended for confinement for two weeks for physical
therapy and medications.
If unresolved, surgical decompression was suggested. Unfortunately, his employers refused to grant
him continued medical assistance. He
then sued, demanding medical treatment and seeking reimbursement of his medical
and hospital expenses as well as payment of sickness wages, disability
compensation, and damages.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, noting among
others, that he was declared “fit to work” not only by the Philippine General
Hospital which he chose, but also by the Employees Compensation Commission to
which his condition was endorsed by the Arbiter.
The Receipt and Quitclaim he executed in favor of his
employers wherein he considered the sum of US$1,010.00 as full payment of his
salaries and benefits was also held to be valid by the Arbiter.
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Arbiter, except for
the issued of disability compensation, and found the seafarer to be entitled to
sickness wages equivalent to 120 days (US$4,800.00 less the US$1,010.00 he
already received) and free medical and hospital treatment in accordance with
the Standard Employment Contract.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision with
minor modification.
The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the Court of Appeals’
decision and ruled that the employers were remiss in giving continuous
treatment for the seafarer. The High
Court clarified that the seafarer should be reimbursed the cost of the
prescribed medicines he purchased and the surgical expenses he incurred.
As for the Receipt and Quitclaim signed by the seafarer,
the High Court explained that the elements of voluntariness and free will are
lacking and do not absolve the employers from the liability of paying him the
sickness wages and other monetary claims.
Citing More
Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC (366 Phil 646 (1999), the Court said that
the law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less compensation
than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from demanding
benefits to which he is entitled.
It is never enough to assert that the parties have
voluntarily entered into such a quitclaim.
The following must likewise exist: (a) there was no fraud or deceit on
the part of any of the parties, (b) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible
and reasonable; and (c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order,
public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a
right recognized by law.
The Court recognized that the Receipt and Quitclaim show
that the seafarer would be releasing his employers from all claims in an all-encompassing
manner, including the fact that he had not contracted or suffered any illness
or injury in the course of his employment and that he was discharged in good
health, which stipulations placed the seafarer in a disadvantageous position
vis-à-vis his employers.
*article written by SVBB Senior Partner Atty. Augusto Bundang originally published at Tinig ng Marino (March to April 2011 issue)
