A seafarer who suffered stroke
on board the vessel must be compensated due to work-related stress.
In the case of Magsaysay
Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc, v. Bengson (G.R. No. 198528,
October 13, 2014) disregarded the employer’s claim that the seafarer’s hypertensive
cardio-vascular disease is not compensable on the sole basis of its
company-designated physician’s declaration that such illness is not
work-related.
The Supreme Court ruled
that the seafarer’s illness, which has
likewise been diagnosed as intracerebral hemorrhage or hemorrhagic
stroke, is a serious condition, and could be deadly.
The Supreme Court noted that the seafarer has been working for the company
since 1988 and has been serving as Third Mate for twelve (12) years.
Having worked for the principal
since 1988 under employment contracts
that were continuously renewed, it can be said that the seafarer spent much of his productive years with the
principal; his years of service certainly took a toll on his body, and he could
not have contracted his illness elsewhere except while working for the
principal.
As Third Mate, he was
saddled with heavy responsibilities relative to navigation of the vessel, ship
safety and management of emergencies.
The seafarer was subjected to physical and mental stress
and strain: as Third Mate, he is the ship’s fourth in command, and he is the
ship’s safety officer; these responsibilities have been heavy burdens on his
shoulders all these years, and certainly contributed to the development of his
illness.
Besides, it is already
recognized that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally
resulting in wear and tear of the human body.
An overseas worker, having
to ward off homesickness by reason of being physically separated from his
family for the entire duration of his contract, bears a great degree of
emotional strain while making an effort to perform his work well.
The strain is even greater
in the case of a seafarer who is constantly subjected to the perils of the sea
while at work abroad and away from his family.c
The Court has ruled that the
list of illnesses/diseases in Section 32-A of the POEA Standard
Employment Contract (SEC) does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so
listed from being compensable. The POEA contract cannot be presumed to contain all the possible
injuries that render a seafarer unfit for further sea duties. And
equally significant, 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.
An employee’s disability
becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated
physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or
permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 240-day treatment
period while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in
gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician
fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or
disability.
In many cases decided in the past, the Supreme Court has held that cardiovascular disease,
coronary artery disease, and other heart-related ailments (including stroke) are compensable.
Thus, in Fil-Pride
Shipping Co., Inc. v. Balasta, (G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014) severe
3-vessel coronary artery disease which the seaman contracted while serving as
Able Seaman was considered an occupational disease. In Villanueva,
Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc., (702 SCRA 311). it
was held that the 2000 POEA-SEC considers heart disease as an occupational
disease.
In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag (662
SCRA 670) the Court held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease
may be a compensable illness, upon proof. In Oriental
Shipmgt. Co., Inc. v. Bastol ( 622 SCRA 352) and Heirs of
the late Aniban v. NLRC (347 Phil. 46) it was
held that myocardial infarction as a disease or cause of death is compensable,
such being occupational. Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc
(607 SCRA 796) held that hypertensive cardiovascular
disease/coronary artery disease and chronic stable angina are
compensable.
Micronesia
Resources v. Cantomayor (552
Phil. 130) stated that a finding of coronary artery disease
entitles the claimant – a seaman Third Officer – to disability
compensation. In Remigio v .NLRC (521 Phil. 330) the
Court held that the claimant – a musician on board an ocean-going vessel – was
entitled to recover for suffering from coronary artery disease. In Sepulveda
v. ECC, (174 Phil. 242) it was declared that the
employee’s illness, myocardial infarction, was directly brought about by his
employment as schoolteacher or was a result of the nature of such employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment