Filipinos seafarers and the “Good Samaritan at sea” doctrine

The recent story of   American sailor who was  rescued by Filipino seafarers may aptly be an application of the “Good Samaritan at Sea” doctrine  or the obligation to render assistance at sea.

 

The 63-year-old sailor Stuart Bee was missing at sea for nearly two days after his boat capsized on the Atlantic Ocean.

 

He was found by Filipino seafarers   on board the vessel “Angeles” last November 29   adrift in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean while clinging to his boat 86 miles from the shore of Port Canaveral, Florida.  

 

“The story of Stuart is no different from others who are pleading for help today; in this time of pandemic. You don’t need to sail out in the ocean to rescue and serve your purpose. There maybe too many Stuarts who happen to be your neighbor, a friend, or just like the Stuart we came to know, a stranger that needs help. Help in any way you can, whenever the opportunity to help is present,”  Filipino seafarer  Lacruiser  Relativo said  in  his facebook post.  

 

 

For centuries, the “Good Samaritan”   maritime rescue doctrine encourages seafarers to go to the aid of life and property in distress.

 

Life as a seafarer involves obligations that are unlike almost any other occupation as they  have long understood that a moral, if not legal, obligation is upon them to render assistance to persons in peril at sea. 

 

The biblical anecdote of the Good Samaritan pertains to the  traveler who, for no other reason than a desire to help a fellow human being, stopped on the road to Jericho to help a man who had been beaten and bloodied by robbers. 

 

The Samaritan bandaged the victim’s wounds, and took him to an inn to recover, which was a gratuitous act for which no reward was sought  and by his  actions the man was saved.

 

In most cases, a person reacts to save another person as result of compassion or instinct, or both.

 

While seafarers will have the same compassion and instinct as other professionals, they have a legislated obligation to render assistance.

 

The duty to render assistance is a general reflection of customary international maritime law.

 

Whether vessels sailing under their flag operate in either a private or public capacity, the requirements incumbent upon the masters of the vessels are the same.

 

This obligation comes from various legal sources, most  from notably international conventions of  the United Nations (UN) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

 

The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says that every signatory to the convention must require the master of a ship flying its flag to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost and to proceed to the rescue of persons in distress.

 

The exemption is when the assisting vessel, the crew or the passengers on board would be seriously endangered as a result of rendering assistance to those in distress.

 

The Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) says “the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so.”

 

The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979 (SAR) also mandates this principle “regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found.”

 

The Salvage Convention of 1989, although primarily directed at addressing the salvage of property and the prevention of marine pollution, nonetheless repeats the SOLAS obligation on the master to render assistance to any person in danger of being lost at sea.

 

States, both signatories and non-signatories to the conventions, are duty bound to ensure those in distress at sea are rendered assistance on a non-discriminatory basis.

 

However, there are some jurisdictions where the law has developed that those who undertake to render assistance must exercise reasonable care and acceptable seamanship in doing so, or else suffer liability for the aggravation or excess harm that they cause to the individuals or property.

 

They  are expected to exercise reasonable care to avoid negligent conduct that worsens the position of the victims and to avoid reckless and wanton conduct in performing the rescue.

 

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)==

Seafarer's Arthritis as a compensable work-related illness

Arthritis is considered as compensable work-related illness for seafarers  who performed tasks onboard  the vessel  that involved unduly heavy physical labor and joint strain .

 

The most common types  are osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

A 1996 study by doctors from  St Thomas' Hospital in  London  published in  Occupational Medicine Journal  pointed out that seafarers, particularly engineers, are required regularly to lift weights in confined spaces, which may involve kneeling or twisting in a crouched position.

This is aggravated by  their vertical environment which involves  daily climbing a number of  stairs.

In doing so, they are vulnerable to repeated acute minor trauma to their knees.  

The typical symptoms of arthritis include painful and swollen joints, especially in the hands, feet, and knees;   fever, fatigue, red and  puffy hands, hard bumps (called rheumatoid nodules) just under the skin near the joints, loss of appetite and  functional disability.

In most cases, employers refuse to pay disability benefits on the premise that  the illness is not work related, or it is  a pre-existing condition as it  may have occurred overtime and  could not have developed during  the seafarer’s  stay on board the vessel.

In Teekay Shipping Phils. vs  Jarin ( G.R. No. 195598 June 25, 2014) , the Supreme Court granted total permanent disability benefits to the Chief Cook. who  suffered  rheumatoid arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis  as an autoimmune disorder occurs when the  immune system mistakenly attacks  the body's tissues. It affects the lining of  joints, causing a painful swelling that can eventually result in bone erosion and joint deformity.

The  Court took note that the risk of contracting rheumatoid arthritis was increased by the seafarer’s exposure to the working conditions in the vessel while performing his daily duties as Chief Cook.

He was often required to work for long periods of time, was constantly exposed to extreme temperatures and was made to carry heavy loads which caused so much stress to his joints and muscles.

In Oscar D. Gamboa vs. Maunlad Trans. Inc.  ( G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2016), the Court considered osteoarthritis , or the degenerative changes of the spine, as a work-related illness due to the Bosun’s task  (on board   the cargo vessel that transported logs)    which  clearly involved unduly heavy physical labor and joint strain.

Osteoarthritis is associated with a breakdown of cartilage in joints and occurs when the cartilage (that cushions the ends of bones in the joints)  gradually deteriorates.

In  the recent case of Wilfredo Salas vs. Transmed Manila Corp.  (GR 247221 June 17, 2020), the Supreme Court  granted  the claim for total and permanent disability benefits to a seafarer who was diagnosed to have suffered gouty arthritis.

The Court took note of the medical opinion of the seafarer’s personal doctor that the   knee pain could be brought about by repeated stresses and strains to his knees while performing his tasks as a Second Officer. 

The personal doctor  explained  that joint stresses from  the seafarers’ prolonged and, at times, faulty work posture cannot be avoided and may have taken a toll on his  knees. 

He was found to be unfit to work as a seafarer considering that his  bilateral knee pain significantly decreased his activity tolerance and can no longer be returned to his pre-injury capacity.

The Court likewise noted that his  dietary intake while aboard the vessel could have contributed to the aggravation of his  illness.

 Such factors in aforesaid cases  proved the causal connection between the seafarers’  work and the increased risk of developing arthritis.

The Court emphasized that what the law requires is not direct proof but  only reasonable proof of the causal connection between the work and ailment.

The  disputable presumption principle under  Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA contract signify that the non-inclusion in the list of compensable diseases/illnesses in Section 32-A  does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits.

It operates in favor of the seafarer as the burden rests upon his employer to overcome the statutory presumption.

Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the seafarer’s employer, this disputable presumption stands.

Substantial evidence is considered by the courts in their decision, which consists of such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. that the seafarer’s working conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.

 

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808 or 09088665786

Joint and solidary liability in seafarers’ abandonment cases

Although international law prescribes that the seafarer has the right to be repatriated back to their point of origin, there are those who suffer  abandonment by their employers.

 

Repatriation  comes from the Latin word repatriare, "return to one's own country," from the prefix re, "back," and patria, "native land."

 

Seafarers are considered contractual employees since their employment is fixed for a period of time  which shall not exceed 12 months. 

The commencement of POEA contract is from the time when the  seafarer actually departs from the Philippines, either airport or seaport, for employment.

 

 It shall cease when he  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 like vessel sale  and change of principal.

 

However, in most cases of abandonment, a shipowner has become incapable of generating required funds to continue with daily marine operations.

It then  withdraws all responsibility by failing to meet its obligations regarding seafarers’ financial and social security (contractual wages), the provision of basic necessities of life (adequate food, accommodation, and medical care)  and  repatriation costs.

Combined with the dangers of the elements of the sea, the abandoned crew have to face the stressful and inhumane consequences of being stranded in a country where they do not speak the language, and the difficulties of financial constraints due to unpaid wages.

According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO),  there are  438 cases  of abandonment (5,767 seafarers)  that have been recorded since 2004 until   August 2020.  In 2020 alone, 31 cases (concerning 470 seafarers) have been recorded to date.

Filipino seafarers stranded onboard the Oceanstar 86 for almost six months in the waters off the coast of Fujian, China were reported after a video showed their dire living conditions and pleaded for their immediate rescue.    They were recently repatriated back to the country.

As long as the seafarers have not arrived at the point of hire, they are entitled to payment of monetary benefits under 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).

The  POEA rules  states  that the manning agency shall assume “joint and solidary liability”  with the employer, which is meant to assure aggrieved workers of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them.

 

The Amended  Migrant Workers Act ( R.A. 10022) also states that the agency which deployed the employees shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the principal for the money claims awarded to the  employees.

 

The Supreme Court  explained in the case of Catan v. NLRC ( 160 SCRA 691, 695) the rationale  : “This must be so, because the obligations covenanted in the 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.”

 

The 2014 amendments to the Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (MLC2006) require shipowners to have compulsory insurance to cover abandonment of seafarers for up to four months’ outstanding wages and entitlements.  It must also cover reasonable expenses from the moment of abandonment to the time of arrival back home such as repatriation, food, clothing, accommodation, drinking water, medical care  and essential fuel for survival on board.

 

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments,  send an e-mail to  info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808 or 09088665786

The “David and Goliath” legal battle for seafarers’ death benefits

The maritime profession   has always been identified as a   high risk workplace  that   remains replete with health and safety hazards  in relation to the  risks of accidents, illnesses and mortality.

 The seafarer is often mentally, physically  and emotionally stressed,    aside from being constantly exposed to a variable environment,  while working on board vessels  that cross ocean boundaries.

The European Maritime Safety Agency declared in a report  that there were 745 work-related fatalities among maritime workers and nearly 9,000 persons injured between 2011 and 2020,  among other tragic statistics of this sector.

A job of a seafarer is indeed not exactly a walk in the park.

 However, the right over death benefits  has also become a long legal battle for some families of deceased  Filipino seafarers.  

 Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration standard employment contract (POEA SEC), in the case of a seafarer’s  work-related death during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of US$50,000 and an additional amount of US$7,000 to each child under the age of 21 but not exceeding four children.

 The amount usually is higher if the death is covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement(CBA).

 Every labor dispute for  monetary claims is  a David and Goliath battle as  it  involves two opposing parties:  the seafarer  (or his heirs)  on one side and the employer  on the other

As the employer does not hesitate to harness its immense resources to limit its liability,  the claims process has become more litigious, allowing employers to question how the seafarers' fate and misfortunes are work-related

 For disability or death to be compensable before and under the 1996 POEA  contract, it was sufficient that the seafarer suffered injury or illness during the term of his employment.  The cause of illness or death is immaterial.

Deaths or injuries need only to occur during the seafarer's employment, which begins at the time of his  departure at the point of hire and ends on his return to the said point upon the end of the contract.

However, through the lobbying of the principals and their manning agencies, the restrictive clause “work-related” was added under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA SEC to limit their liabilities.  

 The 2000 POEA SEC defined "work-related injury" as "injury resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment" and "work-related illness" as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the contract”. 

 Being included in the list is not enough, since  the following conditions must still  be satisfied: (a) the  work must involve the risks described; (b) the disease was contracted as a result of his  exposure to the described risks; (c). the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and (d) there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.  These same conditions were reiterated in the 2010 POEA SEC.

 Two elements must concur for the death to be compensable. First, that the injury or illness (that caused the death) must be work-related; and second, that  the cause must have existed during the term of the  employment contract. The first requirement appeared in the 2000 and 2010 POEA SEC but is absent in the 1996 version.

The heirs are given the burden of proving that a death  is work related which turned to be very disadvantageous on their part in terms of presentation of proofs.

The perilous nature of their work, however,  must be considered in determining the proper benefits to be awarded which, at the very least, should approximate the risks they brave on board the vessel every single day (Seagull Maritime Corp. vs. Dee, 520 SCRA 109.) .

The Supreme Court stressed in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, (318 SCRA 623)  that   the POEA  contract is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels.

Its beneficent provisions must  be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor or for the benefit of the seafarers for these to be fully carried into effect.

If  construed otherwise,  it  would not only transgress prevailing constitutional policy and deride the bearings of relevant case law but also result in a travesty of fairness and an indifference to social justice. (Canuel vs, Magsaysay Maritime, G.R. No. 190161 October 13, 2014)

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments,  send an e-mail to  info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808 or 09088665786

 

The plight of maritime cadets as utility boys.

The proliferation of cadets serving   as utility boys is an issue  that is widely known in the maritime industry but seldom addressed.

Although some maritime students   are accepted   as trainees, there are those  that  first  function as utility boys  or errand runners   for a company before they would be given their vessel assignment.

Aside from doing office errands, there are  cadets   that also do janitorial or messengerial services  while others  are even instructed to  do house chores as if they are “household helpers”. Some are given meager allowances while  others do the tasks  without decent compensation.

“How will the proposed Magna Carta on Filipino Seafarers help cadets not to be taken advantage of?”,   a question raised by Christian Esteban of Maritime Academy  of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP) Bataan during the recent  online public consultation  on the pending law  organized by the office of Senator Risa Hontiveros. He  is also one of the winners of the Ten Outstanding Maritime Students of the Philippines (TOMSP).

Esteban noted that some people romanticize the  issue as if it is a test of character and attitude to overcome such trials.

 “However, I think they forget to ask themselves, is it really justifiable for someone hired as a cadet, to be used in the office for such tasks? What is stopping the company in giving them their respective vessel assignment? Is the office really that short on manpower that they need their cadets to aid them in their daily lives?”, Esteban said.

The education of Filipino cadets  is a  combination  of  theoretical years  and shipboard training.

Cadets will initially study in their school  all the required theoretical knowledge for seamanship, navigation and engineering which will be followed by their shipboard training in a seagoing ship to study practical knowledge and skills for a minimum of 12 months.

They will then  return to their school for the conferment of their BS degree on Marine Engineering or Marine Transportation (BSME/BSMT).

 During the 2019 Maritime Education and Training conference organized by the  Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) ,  the agency presented the results of the 2018 MARINA study that shows  the effectiveness of the 91 maritime schools nationwide

The report noted that that only about 18 percent  of  enrollees ( from freshman year) manages to complete the full academic three years. Out of this  18 percent,  however,  an average of  15 percent only  manages to obtain a BSMT/BSME degree.

Out of the yearly over 20,000 cadets from the maritime schools  eligible for shipboard training, it is estimated that only around 5,000 could be absorbed on board foreign and domestic ships.

This   shortage of opportunities resulted to the proliferation of  cadets  working as “utility boys” wherein many are under a great deal of pressure to finish their apprenticeship within the prescribed period. The adage “kapit sa patalim”   prompts them to agree to  such arrangement.

With  the  hope that they would one day be able to board a vessel, there are  utility boys  whose service to their  agency surpass the 12-month required apprenticeship period, some    without decent compensation.

 Dr. Roderick Galam of Oxford Brookes University discussed in an article  how manning agencies and utility boys/ men   differentially rationalize this exploitative work.   

Galam pointed out that manning agencies use it “as a technology of servitude that, through physical and verbal abuse and other techniques, enforces docility to prepare utility men for the harsher conditions on-board a ship”

 On the other hand, Galam noted that  utility  men   use it as “a technology of imagination, gleaning from it a capacity to shape their future.”

“Faced with few social possibilities in the Philippines, they deploy servitude as a strategy for attaining economic mobility and male adulthood,” Galam said.

Maritime blogger Barista Uno of Marine-Café.Com  described the proliferation  of “utility boys” as an   “ignominy” where the use of maritime cadets as unpaid labour by Philippine manning agencies must be seen as  a clear case of exploitation.

He calls it  “a form of modern-day slavery”.

Barista Uno pointed out that some try to dismiss the whole issue by saying it is the cadets’ choice to serve as utility boys.

He noted that there are industry players that try to rationalize the “serve-for-sail practice” by invoking the need to instill discipline in future ship officers  which he described as  “a cavalier attitude (that)  shows a lack of concern and empathy.”

 “This is yet another example of how seafarers have been commodified in the 21st century. Those who work at sea and cadets who aspire to become ship officers are like cans of Campbell’s Soup on a supermarket shelf,” Barista Uno said. “ The people who have power over them feel that they can use them however they like.”

 Let's stop turning a blind eye to the plight of the utility boys as what Barista Uno described as   “a form of modern-day slavery”.

 

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808 or 09088665786

Damages for unjustified withholding of the seafarers’ travel documents

Manning companies are liable for damages  due to  unjustified withholding of   seafarers’  travel documents preventing them  from seeking lucrative employment elsewhere.

 

The Supreme Court considered as  an act tantamount to bad faith the company’s   arbitrary imposition of  a condition that the  travel  documents would only be released upon signing of a quitclaim in the case of C.F. SHARP & CO. INC.  vs Agustin and Minimo (G.R No.179469, February 15, 2012).

The seafarers applied with the  company as sandblasters and painters in Libya.

After passing the interview, they were required  to submit their passports, seaman’s book, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, employment certificates, certificates of seminars attended, and results of medical examination.

Upon submission of the requirements, a Contract of Employment was executed between the seafarers  and C.F. Sharp.

Thereafter, seafarers were required to attend various seminars, open a bank account with the corresponding allotment slips, and attend a pre-departure orientation.

They were then advised to prepare for immediate deployment and to report to the company  to ascertain the schedule of their deployment.

However, the seafarers  were  not deployed after a month prompting them to request for the release of the documents they had submitted to the company which  allegedly refused to surrender the documents.

The seafarers filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against the company where they claimed that the company  falsely assured them of deployment.

They added  that its refusal to release the travel documents on the ground that they were already bound by reason of the Contract of Employment denied them  of employment opportunities abroad and a guaranteed income.

The company was found guilty of violation of Article 34(k) of the Labor Code, which makes it unlawful for any entity "to withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under this Code and its implementing rules and regulations."

The Supreme Court  awarded moral damages  based on  Article 2219 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 21 which state  that “any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

The Supreme Court  stressed that the company committed an actionable wrong when it unreasonably withheld the documents, thus preventing the seafarers  from seeking lucrative employment elsewhere.

The condition that the documents would only be released upon signing of a quitclaim is  tantamount to bad faith because it effectively deprived the seafarers  of resort to legal remedies.

The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the award of exemplary damages  for “a wrongful act that is accompanied by bad faith or when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner”

Legally speaking, the unauthorized withholding of these travel documents is also a form of coercion that is penalized as one of the prohibited acts under Republic Act. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. 10022, otherwise known as “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.”

The State is mandated to protect seafarers from all threats and coercion done through the confiscation, retention, or withholding of their travel documents such passports and  Seafarers Identification and Record Book (SIRB), which are considered the property of the State.

Agencies and foreign principals found violating POEA rules will be blacklisted or penalized in accordance with R.A. 10022. POEA rules likewise provide that disciplinary actions will be meted against  those found violating Philippine laws, rules, and regulations on overseas employment.

 

The persons criminally liable for the said offense are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having ownership, control, management or direction of their business and the responsible for the commission of the offense and the responsible employees/agents thereof shall be liable.

 

Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day but not more than twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than One million pesos nor more than Two Million Pesos.

 

In every case, conviction shall cause and carry the automatic revocation of the license or registration of the recruitment/manning agency, lending institutions, training school or medical clinic.

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808 or 09088665786

Declare seafarers as regular employees, not merely contractual

The  Makabayan Bloc in Congress, through  House Bill 6588,  is pushing for  job security for seafarers  through  regularization of their employment status.

The HB 6588 filed   on March 11, 2020  is one of the many other bills called the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers  proposed in the House and in the Senate  which aim to institute mechanisms to protect our country’s seafarers’ rights, provide them compulsory benefits, and enforce standards set by international laws.

The Magna Carta, which in essence simply enshrines MLC 2006 into Philippine law, states that seafarers have the right to safe and secure workplace that complies with safety standards; decent working and living conditions on board a ship; medical care, welfare measures and other forms of health and social protection,  among others.

But only HB 6588   raised  the issue of job security through the regularization  of seafarers  who have worked for at least one year (cumulative) with one company.

This is similar to the Labor Code provision ( Art. 279) on regularization of employees after working for one year.

The provision under HB 6588 that is absent in all other versions of the Magna Carta provides in Section 47. (c) that “ The termination of employment of a seafarer on board a foreign vessel or foreign registered ships shall be governed by the POEA-SEC or applicable CBA, provided that a seafarer who has worked for the same manning agent or for the same shipowner or both, for a cumulative period of one year shall enjoy the security of tenure of a regular employee as per Art 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines as amended,  and the employer is obligated to rehire and give the right of first refusal to a regular employee who qualifies, and is willing to work, for the next available vacant position of similar or higher rank.  Once a seafarer has acquired the regular status, he can no longer be refused successive employment unless he resigns in writing, has abandoned his employment, or is dismissed for just cause as provided in Art 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines as amended.”

The bill seeks to address the issue  of  seafarers   not  being entitled to the benefits given to a regular or permanent employee, such as 13th-month pay, reinstatement, separation or termination pay or in some instances, even retirement benefits, since they are considered merely as contractual employees.

This has been the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court since it issued its decision in the 2002 case of Millares v. NLRC (GR 110524 July 29, 2002) that became the landmark jurisprudence defining the nature of employment of Filipino seafarers and the applicable law as they  are considered contractual employees.

Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign 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. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

The provisions of the POEA contract require 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.

Constrained by the nature of their employment, which is quite peculiar and unique in itself, the Supreme Court noted in Ceriola v. NAESS Shipping (GR 193101 April 20, 2015) that it is for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer why the employment status must be contractual only or for a certain period of time. The exigencies of their work necessitates that they be employed on a contractual basis.

The Philippines is considered as the major supplier of maritime labor globally as it is estimated that there is one Filipino seafarer for every four to five complements on board a vessel at any time.

 The estimated 519,031 deployed Filipino seafarers in 2019 per POEA data  remitted  $6.539 billion or around P326.95 billion. The sea-based sector’s remittance comprise at least 22 percent of the total dollar remittances of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs).

 

The country  recently celebrated the  25th National Seafarers Day (NSD) last   Sunday, September 27, 2020,  led by the  Apostleship of the Sea (AOS)  with the theme “Seafarers are keyworkers. You are not alone. You are not forgotten”.

 

Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com or call 09175025808 or 09088665786.