Definitive assessment of a seafarer's disability

A seafarer is considered as  suffering permanent total disability if the medical statement of the company doctor  is  devoid of any definitive declaration as to the seafarer's  capacity  to return to work or at least a categorical and final degree of disability.

For the courts and labor tribunals, determining whether a seafarer's fitness to work despite suffering an alleged partial injury generally requires resort to the assessment and certification issued within the 120/240-day period by the company-designated physician. Through such certification, a seafarer's fitness to resume work or the degree of disability can be known, unless challenged by the seafarer through a second opinion secured by virtue of his right under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract. Such certification must be a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability.  

A final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. Otherwise, the corresponding disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered. (REYNALDO SUNIT,  vs. OSM MARITIME SERVICES, INC.  February 27, 2017G.R. No. 223035

Jurisprudence is replete with cases bearing similar pronouncements.

In Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete (G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011), the Court concluded that the company-designated doctor's certification issued within the prescribed periods must be a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or disability:

As stated in Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol, (G.R. No. 186289 June 29, 2010)

the company-designated doctor must declare the seafarer  fit to work or assess the degree of his permanent disability. Without which, the characterization of a seafarer's condition as permanent and total will ensue because the ability to return to one's accustomed work before the applicable periods elapse cannot be shown.

In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar,  (G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 795), the Supreme Court  underscored  that the assessment of the company-designated physician of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days must be definite, viz: "Moreover, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days. That should he fail to do so and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the seafarer shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. (emphasis supplied)"

There is no "definitive assessment" where the company-designated physician noted that seafarer's wound was still open and that he was to continue his medications  (Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015) If he fails to do so and the seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.(Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta,  G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 624, 626) 

Such principle is more apparent in  event that  the seafarer  has remained unemployed as a seafarer for more than 240 days from the time of his repatriation  or he was unable to perform the same physical activities he used to perform prior to his injury.  ( Belchem Phils./UPL  vs. Eduardo  Zafra G.R. No. 204845               June 15, 2015) 

Incompetence and Inefficiency as grounds for dismissal

It is settled that the employer has the burden to prove that the dismissal of a seafarer  is based on a valid cause. To discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence - or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion - that the cause of the seafarer's dismissal was valid.Specifically, the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause, and (2) the employee to be dismissed must have been afforded due process of law.

As a general concept, poor performance is tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. An unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Poor or unsatisfactory performance of an employee does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties 

To ascribe gross neglect, there must be lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the total absence of care in the performance of duties. In other words, there is gross neglect when the employee exhibits thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting effort to avoid them. On the other hand, habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to perform duties in a single or isolated instance.  

 

The dismissal report against the seafarer did not describe the specific acts that would establish his alleged poor performance, or his want of even slight care in the performance of his official tasks as chief cook for a certain period of time; hence, even assuming that seafarer’s performance was unsatisfactory, the company failed to show that his poor performance amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties.  (INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., v. RANULFO CAMPOREDONDO, G.R. No. 199931, September 07, 2015)

 Accordingly, the following factors should be considered in relation to  incompetence:

(1) the workload of the seafarer  should be consistent with the position agreed upon in the labor contract or with the workload of similar other seafarers; 

(2) the reasons an seafarer  is identified as incompetent should be based on his personal performance, rather than objective factors beyond his control;

 (3) methods for assessing competence must be lawful; 

(4) whether the seafarer  is deemed competent or not should be measured against specific standards, and cannot be judged by qualifications or rank; 

(5) when declaring a seafarer to be incompetent, corresponding evidence should be obtained in addition to legal and applicable standards.

Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer’s rules, in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his length of service and the number of violations committed during his employ. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice,  whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment (PLDT vs. NLRC , 303 SCRA 9). 

When a seafarer commits such violations,  he may be penalized by the master of the vessel with dismissal and be made to pay the cost of repatriation and his replacement. Additionally, an administrative complaint or disciplinary action against the seafarer may be filed before the POEA, who,  after due investigation, may  impose penalties ranging from suspension  to  delisting, depending on the frequency of the violation(s).

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 (Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira 440 Phil. 906 (2002)
In case of an  illegal dismissal,  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.

Assumption of liability not a defense

The  original manning agency cannot  claim that it will  be exempted from liability because it is no longer the manning agency responsible to the dismissed seafarers since  the new manning agencies  had executed Affidavits of Assumption of Responsibility.

In Section 1 of Rule II of the POEA Rules and Regulations, it states that:

Section 1. Requirements for Issuance of License. Every applicant for license to operate a private employment agency or manning agency shall submit a written application together with the following requirements:

x x x

             f. A verified undertaking stating that the applicant:

x x x

(3) Shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract; including but not limited to payment of wages, death and disability compensation and repatriation.

Accordingly, despite the execution of the Affidavits of Assumption of Responsibility by other manning agencies, the original manning agency  cannot exempt itself from all the claims and liabilities arising from the implementation of the contract executed between the said original manning agency  and the seafarers. It is very clear from the above-cited provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the POEA that the manning agency shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer.Joint and solidary liability is meant to assure aggrieved workers of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. The reason for this ruling was given by this Court in the 1988 case of Catan v. National Labor Relations Commission ( 160 SCRA 691, 695)  which is reproduced in part below:

This must be so, because the obligations covenanted in the recruitment [manning] agreement entered into by and between the local agent and its foreign principal are not coterminus with the term of such agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will render nugatory the very purpose for which the law governing the employment of workers for foreign jobs abroad was enacted.

Also, according to Section 10, paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8042, the agency which deployed the employees whose employment contract were adjudged illegally terminated, shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the principal for the money claims awarded to the aforesaid employees. 

The Affidavits of Assumption of Responsibility, though valid as between  the original manning agency and the other two manning agencies, are not enforceable as against the respondents because the latter were not parties to those agreements. The provisions of the POEA Rules and Regulations are clear enough that the manning agreement extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Hence, despite the execution of the aforementioned affidavits,  the original manning agency  cannot exempt itself from the liabilities and responsibilities towards the seafarers.

( SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC., and J.P. SAMARTZSISMARITIME ENTERPRISES CO., S.A., vs. JERRY MAGUAD and PORFERIO CEUDADANO,  G.R. No. 166363,  August 15, 2006) 

Violations of company policies and regulations as grounds for dismissal

 Violations of   company policies and regulations  are considered valid grounds for dismissal under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration- Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which cover  any  of the following acts:

 a. pilferage or theft of ship’s store or cargo

 b. pilferage or theft of ships property, of crews or passengers or other persons with business at the ship.

 c. embezzlement of company   funds

 d. unauthorized disposal of   company ship’s properties for personal gain

 e. any act of dishonesty with intention to defraud the company

 f. gross negligence and failure to observe proper storage and  cargo handling procedures

        resulting in delay of ships     and/or damage to cargoes

 g. failure to observe and comply         with regulation and non- baggage shipment and        acceptance of parcels on board

 h.  failure to observe        regulations on expiration of        shore liberty

 i.  being left behind by ship in        foreign port without justifiable        reason

 j. disorderly conduct and/or        disrespect towards        passengers or other persons

 k. for immorality so as to cast        aspersion on the good name of        the ship and company

 l. inflicting harm or injury to others

Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer’s rules, in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his length of service and the number of violations committed during his employ. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice,  whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment (PLDT vs. NLRC , 303 SCRA 9). 

When a seafarer commits such violations,  he may be penalized by the master of the vessel with dismissal and be made to pay the cost of repatriation and his replacement. Additionally, an administrative complaint or disciplinary action against the seafarer may be filed before the POEA, who,  after due investigation, may  impose penalties ranging from suspension  to  delisting, depending on the frequency of the violation(s).

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 (Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira 440 Phil. 906 (2002)

In case of an  illegal dismissal,  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.

It is well-settled that the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. 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 (MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC., vs. TORIBIO C. A VESTRUZ,, G.R. No. 207010   February 18, 2015)