psychosis, severe depression or schizophrenia

A seafarer’s psychosis, severe depression  or schizophrenia may be  considered  compensable due to the work-related  stressful environment  on board the vessel.

Seafarers are susceptible to mental health issues due to  harassment and bullying  that can take a wide variety of forms, ranging from physical or verbal aggression, ill-treatment, cyber-bullying or sexual discrimination. There is even a high risk of suicide for seafarers with psychosis.  

While the physical effect of harassment and bullying is fairly easy to identify on account of the obvious external signs, the same cannot be said of their  emotional effects  which are often denied or distorted.

In Cabuyoc vs. Inter-Orient Navigation   (G.R. No. 166649,              November 24, 2006) , the Supreme Court ruled that  the seafarer’s illness was the direct result of the demands of his shipboard employment contract and the  hostile treatment and mental trauma in the hands of German ship officers . This led to his nervous breakdown and untimely repatriation to the Philippines.

The  Court disregarded the company’s argument that  psychosis or schizophrenia is not compensable under the POEA contract as his illness  is not caused by a  traumatic head injury which contemplates accidents involving physical or head contacts.

The Court noted the trauma  under the POEA contract  is not limited to  physical in nature but the same may involve mental or emotional hurt, damage or loss sustained. The word "trauma"  is defined as "a bodily injury caused by a physical force applied from without or  a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from stress or injury."

The seafarer's disability is not only physical but mental as well because of the severe depression, mental torture, anguish, embarrassment, anger, sleepless nights and anxiety that befell him.

In Leonis Navigation vs. Obrero (G.R. No. 192754, September 07, 2016), the Court ruled that  work-related stress may precipitate the disorder noting that the seafarer’s prolonged stint at sea eventually taxed his coping abilities which rendered him incapable of handling the stress.

The Court pointed out that  Schizophrenia is the most common form of psychotic disorder which involves a complex set of disturbances of thinking, perception, and social behavior and whose causes are still largely unknown, primarily associated with stressful life events.

In NFD International. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 107131, March 13, 1997),  schizophrenia was declared  to be work-related after the employer failed to negate the causal confluence between the epilepsy suffered by the seafarer after a mauling incident while on-board the vessel and his subsequent affliction of schizophrenia.

In Career Phils. vs Godinez, (G.R. No. 206826, October 2, 2017), the neophyte young seafarer's grave illness was directly caused by the unprofessional and inhumane treatment, as well as the physical, psychological, and mental abuse inflicted upon him by his superiors, aggravated by their failure and refusal to provide timely medical and/or professional intervention, and their neglect and indifference to his condition even as it was deteriorating before their very eyes.

 In C.F. Sharp vs. Perez (G.R. No. 194885,                January 26, 2015)  psychotic disorder was not considered  an injury as a result of an accident from any cause whatsoever which would entitle the seafarer  to higher disability benefits under the CBA.

Accident is one  which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated, and  not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct.

There is no proof that seafarer  met an accident or an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence while on board the vessel. But his  disability was deemed  permanent and total, citing the company doctor’s  findings that recurrence of the same psychotic disorder is possible if the seafarer  is placed in the same situation.

In disability compensation, 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.  Permanent total disability means disablement  to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his  mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.

Probability and not the ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof. The precise medical causation of the illness is not significant, as long as the illness supervened in the course of employment and is reasonably shown to have been either precipitated or aggravated by work condition.

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

Insanity and Suicide

Homesickness and/or family problems may result to depression, but the same does not necessarily equate to mental disorder  that will  enable the heirs to be entitled   to death benefits for a seafarer who allegedly committed suicide. 

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in  the recent case of Seapower Shipping vs. Heirs of Warren Sabanal (G .R. No. 198544,  June 19,2017)   where it denied the claim for death benefits as the heirs failed to prove that  cause of death of  the deceased seafarer is not  suicide. 

Under the  Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) standard employment contract,  the employer is generally liable for death compensation benefits when a seafarer dies during the term of employment. This rule, however, is not absolute. Part II, Section C(6) of the  contract  exempts the employer from liability if it can successfully prove that the seafarer's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act.

       The question presented  is whether the exemption extends to the case when the seafarer had been acting strangely prior to jumping into the sea.

       Evidence of insanity or mental sickness may be presented to negate the requirement of willfulness as a matter of counter-defense. But the burden of evidence is then shifted to the claimant to prove that the seafarer was of unsound mind. 

 The seafarer's strange behavior alone is insufficient to prove his insanity. Without proof that his mental condition negated the voluntariness he showed in stepping overboard, the seafarer's case is still considered suicide. 

Since the willfulness may be inferred from the physical act itself of the seafarer (his jump into the open sea), the insanity or mental illness required to be proven must be one that deprived him of the full control of his senses; in other words, there must be sufficient proof to negate voluntariness. 

The heirs  did not present any evidence to support   their  claim that  the seafarer  was already insane when he jumped overboard.  The heirs  only relied on the strange behavior of the deceased seafarer  as detailed by the ship captain in the ship log and master's report. However,  while such behavior may be indicative of a possible mental disorder, it is insufficient to prove that the deceased seafarer  had lost full control of his faculties. 

   In order for insanity to prosper as a counter-defense, the claimant must substantially prove that the seafarer suffered from complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act or complete absence of the power to discern the consequences of his action. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties does not foreclose willfulness. In fact, the ship log shows the deceased seafarer was still able to correct maps and type the declarations of the crew hours before he jumped overboard. The captain observed that the deceased seafarer did not appear to have any problems while performing these simple tasks, while the seafarer -on-guard reported that the deceased seafarer  did not show any signs of unrest immediately before the incident. These circumstances, coupled with the legal presumption of sanity tend to belie  the heir's  claim that the deceased seafarer  no longer exercised any control over his own senses and mental faculties

 The Court  cited a related case, Crewlink, Inc. v. Teringtering (G.R. No. 166803, October 11, 2012), where it ruled that  the claimant presented no evidence, witness, or any medical report to support the claim of insanity other than  bare allegations that the seafarer was suffering from a mental disorder . The  explained  that:

"Homesickness and/or family problems may result to depression, but the same does not necessarily equate to mental disorder. The issue of insanity is a question of fact; for insanity is a condition of the mind not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man would know what goes on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing the insanity of [a deceased seafarer] requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the person claimed to be insane, or who has rational basis to conclude that a person was insane based on the witness' own perception of the person, or who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. No such evidence was presented to support respondent's claim"