23rd National Seafarers Day

The  23rd National Seafarers Day (NSD)  fell on September 30 , 2018 with the  theme  “MARINONG FILIPINO: KAYAMANAN NG LAHI!" 

Former president Fidel V. Ramos earlier issued on July 9, 1996 Proclamation No. 828 declaring August 18 as National Seafarers Day wherein the AOS was tasked to coordinate with the public and private sector in activities related to the celebration of said event. The purpose of the Proclamation is to give due recognition to the vital role of Filipino seafarers towards the development of the Philippines as a maritime country. Later, Proclamation No.1094 was issued in 1997 by President Ramos which moved NSD to every last Sunday of September every year. 

Nationwide NSD activities  include the  concert by the bay, memorial at sea for the deceased seafarers, , high Mass, oratorical/ art/ photo contest, and karaoke challenge. 


In Manila,  the grand Parade  to San Andres Sports Complex was participated  by more than 3000 stakeholders from maritime schools, government agencies, manning agencies, training centers, maritime organizations, unions, families and private institutions. 

The winners of the  search for Ten Outstanding Maritime Students of the Philippines TOMSP were  announced last September 30, 2018  as  part of the 23rd  National Seafarers'  Day (NSD) led by  Apostleship of the Seas (AOS). 

The nationwide search started in 2010 and gave recognition to students for being academically excellent, highly competent in practice, in good moral standing and active in their respective communities. The chosen students are seen as the embodiment of the "ideal seafarer," displaying "integrity, passion, assertiveness, dependability and camaraderie" that will allow them to become globally competitive Filipino seafarer.

The 2018 TOMSP winners are:

1. Aison Belarmino, 

        University of Perpetual Help System DALTA , UPHSD (Las Piñas);
2. Ian Christian Elardo, 

       DMMA College of Southern Philippines (Davao);
3. Christian Gilbert Esteban, 

       Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP) – IMMAJ JSU (Bataan);
4. John Paul Guevarra, 

       Philippine Merchant Marine Academy PMMA (Zambales); 
5.Daimler Daves Nisco, Malayan Colleges (Laguna) ;
6. Jancarl Gregory Palacio 

     University of Cebu - Lapulapu and Mandaue UCLM (Cebu);
7.Peña, Carl Oscar B. 

      Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP)– IMMAJ JSU (Bataan);
8.France Gerard Santamena, 

      John B. Lacson Colleges Foundation JBLCF – Bacolod (Bacolod City)
9.Junel Kristian. Semaña, 

       Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP) – CGSO (Bataan);
10. Ken Arnie Tulmo, 

      John B. Lacson Colleges Foundation JBLCF – Bacolod (Bacolod City)

#nsd23 #nsd2018 #marinongpinoy #pinoyseafarer #filipinoseafarer

2018 Ten Outstanding Maritime Students of the Philippines TOMSP

The winners of the  search for Ten Outstanding Maritime Students of the Philippines TOMSP were  announced last September 30, 2018  as  part of the 23rd  National Seafarers'  Day (NSD) led by  Apostleship of the Seas (AOS). 

The nationwide search started in 2010 and gave recognition to students for being academically excellent, highly competent in practice, in good moral standing and active in their respective communities. The chosen students are seen as the embodiment of the "ideal seafarer," displaying "integrity, passion, assertiveness, dependability and camaraderie" that will allow them to become globally competitive Filipino seafarer.

The 2018 TOMSP winners are:

1. Aison Belarmino, 

        University of Perpetual Help System DALTA , UPHSD (Las Piñas);
2. Ian Christian Elardo, 

       DMMA College of Southern Philippines (Davao);
3. Christian Gilbert Esteban, 

       Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP) – IMMAJ JSU (Bataan);
4. John Paul Guevarra, 

       Philippine Merchant Marine Academy PMMA (Zambales); 
5.Daimler Daves Nisco, Malayan Colleges (Laguna) ;
6. Jancarl Gregory Palacio 

     University of Cebu - Lapulapu and Mandaue UCLM (Cebu);
7.Peña, Carl Oscar B. 

      Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP)– IMMAJ JSU (Bataan);
8.France Gerard Santamena, 

      John B. Lacson Colleges Foundation JBLCF – Bacolod (Bacolod City)
9.Junel Kristian. Semaña, 

       Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP) – CGSO (Bataan);
10. Ken Arnie Tulmo, 

      John B. Lacson Colleges Foundation JBLCF – Bacolod (Bacolod City)

Former president Fidel V. Ramos earlier issued on July 9, 1996 Proclamation No. 828 declaring August 18 as National Seafarers Day wherein the AOS was tasked to coordinate with the public and private sector in activities related to the celebration of said event. The purpose of the Proclamation is to give due recognition to the vital role of Filipino seafarers towards the development of the Philippines as a maritime country. Later, Proclamation No.1094 was issued in 1997 by President Ramos which moved NSD to every last Sunday of September every year. The theme for this year's 23rd NSD is "Marinong Filipino: Kayamanan ng Lahi".

#nsd23 #nsd2018 #marinongpinoy #pinoyseafarer #filipinoseafarer

Timeliness of the third doctor referral in seafarer’s cases

The POEA Contract does not require a specific period within the parties in a case involving a seafarer’s disability claims may seek the opinion of a third doctor.  They may do so even during the mandatory conference before the labor tribunals.

          This was the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ilustricimo vs. NYK-Fil Shipmanagement (G.R. No. 237487 June 27, 2018) that involved a seafarer that was diagnosed with bladder cancer.

          The court ruled that the company-designated doctors’ assessment is not always binding in cases of non-referral to a third doctor of disability claims of seafarers.

          Legal issues on compliance with the third doctor referral procedure is based on Section 20(A) (3) of the POEA-Standard Employment Contract which provides that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated doctor, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

          Referral to a third doctor became a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the POEA contract provision that the company-designated doctor’s assessment should prevail in case of non-observance of the third doctor referral provision in the contract.  Stated otherwise, the company can insist on its disability rating even against the contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for a referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.

          The Supreme Court downplayed the employer’s argument that the seafarer’s failure to communicate his separate medical certification prior to the filing of the complaint not only constitutes a breach of his contractual obligations under the POEA contract, but also renders the complaint premature and is a ground for the dismissal of his claim for disability benefits.

          The Court in said case held that the employers do not deny receiving the seafarer’s letter despite their insistence that he failed to activate the third doctor provision.

          Infact, employers repeatedly insisted that the letter was not meant to dispute the company-designated doctor’s assessment, but rather to inform them that petitioner needed continued medical assistance.  On the assumption that the seafarer indeed “belatedly” informed the employer of the opinion of his second doctor and his intent to refer his case to a third doctor, the fact remains that they have been notified of suchintent.

          The instant Ilustricimo vs. NYK-Fil case emphasized that the POEA Contract does not require as specific period within which the parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and they may do so even during the mandatory conference before the labor tribunals.   

          Accordingly, upon being notified of the seafarer’s intent to dispute the company doctor’s findings, whether prior or during the mandatory conference, the burden to refer the case to a third doctor has shifted to the respondents.

          Informerly Inc. Shipmanagement Incorporated vs. Rosales (438 SCRA 30) reiterated that when the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment made by his own doctor, the seafarer shall so signify and the company thereafter carries the burden of activating the third doctor provision:

          This, the employers failed to do so, and the seafarer cannot be faulted for the non-referral.

          Consequently, the company-designated doctors’ assessment is not binding.

          (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0917-502-5808 or 0908-866-5786).

Seafarer’s loans and prohibited recruitment acts

Despite the perceived high income they receive, it becomes difficult for some Filipino  seafarers  to make the earnings last for the period of vacation and examinations, which in recent times can be inordinately long.

Not all seafarers have the privilege of getting redeployed  immediately after their disembarkation making it  problematic to have any cash reserves.

Difficult times and immediate need for money will lead  seafarers to people known as loan sharks to be able to finance certain expenses.

                   

Loan sharks can be a person or entity that allows you to borrow a certain amount of money and charge with higher interest rate, usually above established legal rates. They are also illegal financing companies that usually targets people who are in desperate need of money

Taking advantage of such situation,  there are  employers or manning agencies that  impose  a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby a seafarer is required to avail of a loan from a specifically designated institution, entity, or person.

Such act is  considered as one of the prohibited acts    under the Amended Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (AMWA) or  R.A.  No. 10022 and the  POEA rules  in relation to the  recruitment and employment of Filipino seafarers wherein the company or person   can be held criminally or administratively  liable.

The POEA’s revised rules was passed in accordance with the government’s policy,   among others, to uphold the dignity and fundamental human rights of Filipino seafarers navigating foreign seas, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

Other prohibited acts that involve loans  include (a)  withholding or denying travel or other pertinent documents from an applicant seafarer for monetary or financial considerations, or for any other reasons, other than those authorized under the Labor Code; (b)   withholding of seafarer’s salaries or remittances, SSS contributions and loan amortization or shortchanging/reduction thereof without justifiable reasons ; (c)  granting a loan to a seafarer with interest exceeding eight percent (8%) per annum which will be used for payment of legal and allowable fees and making the seafarer issue, either personally or through a guarantor or accommodation party, post-dated checks in relation to the said loan; and (d) refusing to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by the seafarer after the latter’s employment contract has been prematurely terminated through no fault of his/her own.

Under  the AMWA,  any person found guilty of any of the prohibited acts shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).

Under the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations, penalties for  the  offenses may vary based on the frequency of violations from  suspension of license ( two months to two years)  to its cancellation on the fourth offense.

         

Money claims arising from recruitment violation may be awarded in addition to the administrative penalties imposed. In lieu of the penalty of suspension of license, the POEA may impose the penalty of fine which shall be computed at Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for every month of suspension. 

The penalty of cancellation of license shall be imposed by the POEA upon a respondent  found liable for committing an offense, regardless of the number or nature of charges, against five (5) or more workers in a single case.

All cases  shall be barred if not commenced or filed within three (3) years after such cause of action accrued.

(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)

Leptospitoris in the seafaring industry

Because of their nature of work, seafarers are bound to visit many ports in different parts of the world and are thus exposed to various pandemic and epidemic diseases

  One of the infections that a seafarer may suffer while on board the vessel  is leptospirosis. It  is an infection caused by corkscrew-shaped bacteria called Leptospira.

Leptospiral infection in humans causes a range of symptoms, and some infected persons may have no symptoms at all. Leptospirosis is a biphasic disease that begins suddenly with fever accompanied by chills, intense headache, severe myalgia (muscle ache), abdominal pain, conjunctival suffusion (red eye), and occasionally a skin rash. The symptoms appear after an incubation period of 7–12 days. 

It is often transmitted by animal urine or by water or soil containing animal urine coming into contact with breaks in the skin, eyes, mouth, or nose. It is contagious as long as the urine is still moist. Rats, mice, and moles are important primary hosts but a wide range of other mammals including dogs, deer, rabbits, cows, sheep,  and certain marine mammals carry and transmit the disease as secondary hosts. 

            The classic form of severe leptospirosis is known as Weil's disease, which is characterized by liver damage (causing jaundice), kidney failure, and bleeding. Additionally, the heart and brain can be affected, meningitis of the outer layer of the brain, encephalitis of brain tissue with same signs and symptoms; and lung affected as the most serious and life-threatening of all leptospirosis complications. The infection is often incorrectly diagnosed due to the nonspecific symptoms. Other severe manifestations include extreme fatigue, hearing loss, respiratory distress, and azotemia.

For a sick  seafarer to be entitled to medical benefits under the  POEA-Standard Employment Contract (SEC),   he must have suffered work related illness which is defined as any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of one of the  twenty-four (24) occupational diseases listed under Section 32-A of the said contract. .

It is also  not sufficient to simply establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted .

Leptospiros as one of the listed  infectious disease that a seafarer may suffer during the effectivity of his contract  is  a disease resulting from the presence and activity of pathogenic microbial agents in the body.Infectious diseases are recognized as an occupational hazard in seafaring and are closely connected to the conditions of working and living onboard.

 It is   a well-known fact that seafaring is one of the most hazardous occupations, in regards to personal health and safety concerns of seafarers. Apart from accidents, seafarers are prone to certain serious diseases and health hazards due to the nature of onboard work, change in climatic conditions, type of cargo carried, working hours, materials being handled, epidemic and endemic diseases, and  personal habits.

Since one of the requirement for an illness to be compensable is that the seafarer suffered said illness during the effectivity of the POEA contract, it is imperative that his condition or symptoms  must be documented while he is on board the vessel, such as headaches, fever, coughs,  sore throat. chills, nausea, and shivering, skin rashes.  Otherwise, his claim for disability benefits might be denied due to failure to prove that said illness occurred while his contract is still in force.

(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)

Extension of the seafarer's contract

Seafarers are considered contractual employees. Their employment is governed by the Standard Employment Contract (SEC) they sign  and  duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires.

Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. For the seafarers mental and physical health, they need a break after “long periods away from home, limited communication and consistently high work loads.”

As a general rule, the period of employment shall be for a period mutually agreed upon by the seafarer and the employer but not to exceed 12 months. The Maritime Labor Convention 0f 2006 (MLC2006)  prescribes that the seafarer has the right to be repatriated within a contract period of less than 12 months.

The commencement of the contract is from the time when the contracted seafarer actually departs from Philippine, either airport or seaport, for employment. It shall cease when the seafarer completes his period of contractual service aboard the ship, signs-off from the ship and arrives at the point of hire. 

The POEA contract requires the seafarer to arrive at the point of hire as it signifies the completion of the employment contract, and not merely its expiration.

Similarly, a seafarer’s employment contract is terminated even before the contract expires as soon as he arrives at the point of hire and signs off for medical reasons, due to shipwreck, voluntary resignation or for other just causes.

 There are instances that the employment is not terminated as set in  the contract but becomes a subject of extension.

Usually extension of contract period are not encouraged due to factors such as fatigue, complacency and other health reasons and same may not be accepted if relief is already lined up.  Extension request must always be  documented duly signed.

Any extension of the contract can be voluntary or compulsory

1. Voluntary if the extension is with the  mutual consent of both parties. 

2.  Compulsory   until the ship’s arrival at a convenient port and/ or    after arrival of the replacement crew provided that, in any case, the continuance of such service shall not exceed three months.

In the absence of a new document or POEA contract, as long as the seafarer has not yet arrived at the point of hire,  it is legally presumed that the original contract is still subsisting. If a seafarer keeps working for the same employer for a period longer than the agreed period,  any subsequent working period that exceeds this period of time is to be considered  extension of the  contract.

The seafarer is entitled to be paid his wages and other benefits  after the expiration of his contract and during the extended period until the vessel's arrival at a convenient port.  The obligations and liabilities of the local agency and its foreign principal do not end upon the expiration of the contracted period as they were duty bound to repatriate the seaman to the point of hire to effectively terminate the contract of employment. (Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC,330 Phil. 493)

If he suffers from an illness or accident or he dies during the extended period, the same benefits from his original contract will be applicable.

However, there was no implied renewal of contract if the seafarer was allowed to stay after the termination of his contract. The extension was due to the fact that the ship was still at sea and the  late disembarkation was not without valid reason. The company could not have disembarked the seafarer on the date of the termination of his employment contract, because the vessel was still in the middle of the sea (Unica vs. Anscor Swire Ship Management Corporation ;  G.R. No. 184318; February 12, 2014)

(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)