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)

Accident or illness report while on board the vessel

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract include medical treatment apart from disability benefits and sickness allowance. A medically repatriated seafarer, either due to an injury or an illness, should remember that there are three basic medical documentations that will play vital roles in availing benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA- SEC), to wit:

1. Pre -Employment Medical Examination (PEME)

2. Accident or illness report while on board the vessel

3. Post-medical reporting within three (3) working days upon arrival in the Philippines

One who claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should not only comply with the procedural requirements of law but must also establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.The burden, therefore, rests on theseafarer to show that he   suffered or contracted his illness or injury, while still employed as a seafarer, which 

resulted in his permanent disability.

A seafarer must present evidence or report  that he complained of any medical condition while  working  on board the vessel during the term of his contract . This is  to give the  company or insurance authorities the basis for evaluating whether the personal injury or illness in question can be recognized as an occupational injury or  disease. A work-related Illness  is  any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied. A work-Related Injury  is an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.


Otherwise,  he will be disqualified  for disability benefits since  he disembarked due to a  finished contract.  There must be a showing that he suffered the illness or injury within the effectivity of POEA contract,    from departure from the point of hire until return to the point of hire (i.e.  Airport to Airport ). The employment of the seafarer 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.

In the recent case of the  Veronico Tagud vs. BSM Crew Service Center Phils  (G.R. No. 219370. December 6, 2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the seafarer  failed to discharge this burden. He  only presented an x-ray report dated 21 October 2008 taken in Wynnum, Queensland, where the Kota Pemimpin vessel docked three days after he lost his balance due to the tilting of the ship which hurt his right elbow region. But even findings in the x-ray result stated that there was no fracture and no abnonnality except for a small olecranon spur. This finding is therefore not conclusive and can lead to many other assumptions. Also, after the x-ray procedure was taken, the seafarer could have immediately requested for a follow­ up check-up or demonstrated that he was in need of urgent medical attention. But he did not. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that at the time of his repatriation, the seafarer was not suffering from any physical disability requiring immediate medical assistance and that his employment was terminated due to a finished contract. It is also well noted that many other incidents could have occurred in the duration of four months from the time he was repatriated until he consulted a private physician which could have triggered the pain in his upper right extremities and that such illness or injury could not have been work-related at the time he was still employed by respondents

Case flow at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

The proceedings before the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC are governed by the Labor Code, as amended, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, and suppletorily, the Rules of Court. The NLRC Rules describe the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter as non-litigious. Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure in the regular courts do not apply in the labor arbitration proceedings.  Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over seafarer  cases as enumerated under Article 217 of the Labor Code, among others , :(a) Termination disputes (or illegal dismissal cases) (b) Money claims arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract, involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages as provided by Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022; and other cases as may be provided by law.


After the termination of the Single Entry Approach (SEnA), the following is the case  flow at the labor arbiter and appellate (commission proper) level at the NLRC:

FAQs - NLRC Proceedings

Here is the Frequently Asked Questions for cases filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) 

 Conference

The Labor Arbiter shall summon the parties to a conference within two days from receipt of an assigned case.The purpose of the conference is either to:

·                                 amicably settle the dispute;

·                                 determine the real parties in interest;

·                                 define and simplify the issues of the case;

·                                 enter into admissions and/or stipulations of facts; and

thresh out preliminary matters. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

 Number of conferences allowed

The number of conferences shall not exceed three (3) settings and shall be terminated within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the first conference.

No motion for postponement shall be entertained. Non-appearance of the complainant/s during the scheduled hearings for mediation/conciliation conference shall be a ground for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

In case of non-appearance of the respondent/s during the first conference, a second conference shall proceed. Non-appearance of the respondent/s during the second conference shall immediately terminate the mandatory conciliation/mediation conference. The complainant/s shall thereupon be allowed to file his position paper as well as submit evidence in support of his cause or causes of action after which, the labor arbiter shall render his decision on the basis of the evidence on record. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

When to submit position papers/ memorandum

If, during the conferences, the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in whole or in part, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order directing the parties to simultaneously file their respective verified position papers, with the supporting documents and affidavits within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the last conference, with proof of having furnished each other with the copies thereof.

The verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled.

When is a hearing necessary or not?

If there is a need for a hearing, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order setting the date or dates for said hearing which shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from initial hearing. However, if he finds no necessity for further hearing after the parties have submitted their position papers and supporting documents, he shall issue an Order to that effect and inform the parties. The Arbiter shall render his decision in the case within ninety (90) days.

The Labor Arbiter determines the necessity of a hearing

As soon as the parties have submitted their position papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall, motu propio, determine whether there is a need for a formal trial or hearing. The Labor Arbiter may, at his discretion, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence from any party or witness.

 When will the Labor Arbiter render decision?

The Arbiter shall render his decision within thirty (30) calendar days, without extension, after the submission of the case by the parties for resolution, even in the absence of stenographic notes, provided however that cases involving Overseas Filipino Workers shall be decided within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint which shall be deemed perfected upon acquisition by the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over the respondent/s. (Sec. 5, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

May the Labor Arbiter conciliate disputes?

Yes. At any stage of the proceedings in all cases, the Arbiter shall exert all efforts and take positive steps toward resolving the dispute through conciliation.

 What is an appeal in compulsory arbitration?

When an aggrieved party is not satisfied with the decision, order or award of the Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator or DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, the decision, award or order may be elevated to the Commission Proper upon grounds provided by law.

 What is the period of appeal?

Within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter or of the POEA Administrator. In case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, the appeal may be filed within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders.

What are the other requisites for the perfection of an appeal?

·                                 The appeal should be under oath.

·                                 Proof of payment of appeal fee.

·                                 Proof of posting of a cash or surety bond.

·                                 Must be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the supporting arguments.

·                                 A statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision or award.

Proof of service on the other party of such appeal.

 When is a bond required in an appeal?

In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator and DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer involves monetary award.

How many copies of the appeal must be submitted and where does one file an appeal?

The appeal, in five (5) legibly typewritten copies, may be filed with the respective Regional Arbitration Branch, the DOLE Regional Office or the POEA, where the case was heard and decided.

Can an appeal for decisions involving monetary award be perfected without posting a bond?

An appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award.

What is the period to resolve the appeal?

The appeal from the decision, order or reward of the Labor Arbiter and POEA Administrator shall be resolved by the Commission within 20 calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee or upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum.

In case of an appeal from the decision of the DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, it shall be resolved within 10 calendar days.

Source: Department of Labor And Employment 

Blame-shifting in Seafarer’s labor cases

Pinoy Seafarers’ Rights

Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho

“Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo.”  Never mind if the seafarer dies before he receives compensation. A popular Filipino saying that applies directly to the possible  legal effect of ANGKLA’s  bill (House Bill No.  5430) that seeks to delay the execution of  the favorable judgment from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).

 In most cases for disability compensation, some incur huge debts to sustain their medication while others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released. And yet ANGKLA insists that the aim of the bill is “to balance the interest” of  the seafarer and the employer as  “there is little hope of recovering anything through restitution.” In reality,  employers  have the legal remedies to recover the amount, but one cannot reclaim the life of the deceased seafarer.

Worse, ANGKLA has employed the art of deception in sanitizing the real picture  that the seafarers are victims of the employers’ abuses  when it authored the  Republic Act 10706 , or the  Seafarers’ Protection Act. Call it the game of “blameshifting”, ANGKLA has diverted  attention on labor cases   by discrediting the lawyers who ANGKLA   accused of having considerable interest in the seafarer’s  monetary benefits.

Lest we   forget, seafarers are forced to go to court because the employers  violated their legal rights first. Every  labor dispute is a David and Goliath battle as  it  involves two opposing parties:  the worker on one side and the management on the other, for  monetary claims for  disability and death benefits, illegal dismissal as well as unpaid or underpayment of salaries and wages

In illegal dismissal cases,  the POEA contract requires compliance with  two basic requirements for a lawful dismissal: a just or authorized case as prescribed by law (substantive requirement), and observance of due process. Many are sent home due to unfounded accusations and without the proper notices given.

Away from his family and working on board vessels sailing non-stop for weeks or months the world’s oceans, he is mentally and emotionally stressed. Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant weather changes of extreme hot and cold as the ships cross ocean boundaries, not to mention harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed, injured or ill are high.

As if working under these difficult conditions are not enough, when he sustains injury, illness or lose his life, seldom does he receive full compensation provided under the law due to company’s  legal maneuverings by  using  the POEA  contract  that contains terms and conditions formulated more favorable to his employer and is littered with ambiguous provisions, generalizations, technicalities that he does not understand.

In many instances, he signs Receipt and Quitclaim documents thereby  releasing his employers from all claims, demands and causes of action without even understanding their contents. Oftentimes, he is misled into accepting an ex-gratia, miniscule amount, in the guise that his condition is either not work-connected, or for any other reason for which he does not comprehend. Compensation claims are either denied or downgraded   due to the biased medical opinion of the company designated  physician.

More often than not, he knows that he is being cheated of his rights, but how can he question his employer in these instances, without the assistance of competent lawyer of his own choosing?

Instead of addressing the above issues by giving seafarers more access in compensation benefits, R.A. No. 10706 will   restricts  his option of an avenue to avail of legal services of competent lawyers, which he can voluntarily enter into, are therefore,  antagonistic to his interests, rendering him defenseless against the abuses of his employers.  They will, in effect, obstruct the effective and efficient administration of justice.

Seafarers should not be deceived by the misleading projection of the  law which employed the “scare tactic” to discourage seafarers from engaging the legal services of lawyers by depicting the latter as vultures. By charging even eleven percent (11%) of the amount recoverable, or one percent higher than the ten percent (10%) limit,  is not “abusive” per legal practice standard. Yet, ANGKLA used as “papogi” points its deceptive concern towards the seafarers. In the end, the legislative act intends to protect business interest from the cases filed by seafarers deprived of their rights under contract and the law rather than give more access to the seafarers for rightful compensation.

When a seafarer is forced to go to engage the services of a lawyer, employers   do not hesitate to harness its immense resources to  escape from  or limit its liability. However, when he wins, the employer, in order give a semblance of sympathy, will use the Seafarer’s Protection Act to say “I care for you. Your lawyer should get only ten percent.”  Ironically,  ANGKLA’s escrow bill  is anti-seafarer since it is a  dilatory tactic wherein he  will not immediately get what is rightfully due to him. Never mind if the seafarer dies before the decision, as long as the employer’s interest is also protected by ANGKLA’s  escrow bill.

Without any leverage in prosecuting his monetary claims, chances are, he bows to the demand of his employer to either drop his claim or accept a small settlement.  If he has enough pride and heart, and there are only a few who fall in this category, his only recourse is the exercise of his right, guaranteed by the due process clause of our Constitution, to engage the legal services of attorneys of his choice.  With good, experienced, professional lawyers, he will be able to prosecute his monetary claim in a level playing field.

It is election time again. Be critical of the real colors. 

             

Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho  is a graduate of UP College of Law (1998)  and  is currently a junior partner of Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan (SVBB) law offices  who heads the seafarers’ division. He is a  speaker on  nationwide paralegal seminars on  seafarers rights.  He is presently the executive vice president of the Maritime Law Association of the Philippines (MARLAW),  and an active  member of the Maritime Forum Inc. , the National Seafarers Day (NSD) committee and International Pro Bono Network. The SVBB law works hand in hand with various seafarers welfare  organizations such as the Apostleship of the Seas (AOS) Philippines, Luneta Seafarers Welfare Foundation (LUSWELF) and United Filipino Seafarers (UFS) . He is a legal commentator on maritime issues on print, radio and TV. A co-anchor of the radio program Bantay OCW Usapang Marino aired over Radio Inquirer/ DZIQ every Wednesday 10:30am to 12noon. For comments, please send  email  at info@sapalovelez.com or call  09175025808/ 09088665786. 

Labor/ Seafarers' claims to be delayed by ANGKLA bill placing NLRC/NCMB awards in Escrow

An anti-labor/seafarer bill might be refiled by ANGKLA Partylist during the next Congress if it will be reelected in office, a bill that  is clearly a mere dilatory tactic to stop the labor/  seafarers   from getting what is rightfully due them.

With  House Bill  No. 5430, the worker, or seafarer in this case,  will wait for longer years before they receive the award by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), mostly  for cases involving monetary claims involving disability and death benefits, illegal dismissal as well as unpaid or underpayment of salaries and wages. 

Through HB 5430, ANGKLA  aimed to amend the labor code that will have significant impact on labor claims governing the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions issued by NLRC/NCMB.  

ANGKLA proposes that to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment, the proceeds of execution shall be deposited in an escrow account with an escrow agent designated by the NLRC  or the NCMB. The proceeds shall remain in escrow until such time the finality of the decision issued by the appropriate appellate court is obtained.. The proceeds shall only be released after issuance of an entry of judgment by the appropriate appellate court and upon issuance by the NLRC or the NCMB, after motion of the proper party, of an order authorizing the release of proceeds of execution. The order authorizing the release of the amount deposited in escrow shall be deemed final.

ANGKLA pointed out that the amendment is proper as the problem of the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions gains greater relevance considering the following factors: (a) the complainant will insist on the execution of the NLRC or NCMB decision despite the appeal; (b) even if the appellate courts overturn or modify the NLRC or NCMB decision, there is little hope of recovering anything through restitution; (c) more legal costs and expenses will be incurred in pursuing the case through the appellate courts and in applying for restitution of the judgment award. 

Every labor dispute involves two opposing parties:  the worker on one side and the management on the other.  And this bill, definitely, is not in favor of labor, proposed by a partylist that projects itself as a protector of seafarers' interest, and labor as a whole. It is obviously a bill that seeks to protect more the respondent companies rather than the seafarers' themselves. 

Away from his family and working on board vessels sailing non-stop for weeks or months the world’s oceans, he is mentally and emotionally stressed. Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant weather changes of extreme hot and cold as the ships cross ocean boundaries, not to mention harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed, injured or ill are high. As if working under these difficult conditions are not enough, when he sustains injury, illness or lose his life, seldom does he receive full compensation provided under the law because his employer does not hesitate to harness its immense resources to limit its liability. 

 In most instances, workers run after benefits that are denied to them. Labor litigation takes years before it reaches the supreme court. In most cases, the elevation of the records alone from the NLRC/NCMB to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will take several years. The proceedings in the appellate court will entail further delay.  In cases of seafarers with medical conditions, some incur huge debts to sustain their medication. Others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released. 

The scenario envisioned by ANGKLA will be analogous to situations described by the the Supreme Court where "the judgment becomes illusory.."Corona International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,343 SCRA 512)  In one instance, the Supreme Court lamented that   the claimant "has grown old with the case. He fears he may no longer be in this world when the case is finally decided." (Borja vs.  Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 847)  The prevailing party might  be unable to enjoy  the judgment award  after the lapse of time, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may have no recourse but to delay. (Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. Philippine Tourism Authority,341 SCRA 90; Yasuda v. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 385)

The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance or postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by  the labor code (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v.  NLRC, 280 SCRA 806, 816.)

In cases of execution pending appeal, the Supreme Court underscored that " the law itself has laid down a compassionate policy which, once more, vivifies and enhances the provisions of the 1987 Constitution on labor and the working man. . . . These duties and responsibilities of the State are imposed not so much to express sympathy for the workingman as to forcefully and meaningfully underscore labor as a primary social and economic force, which the Constitution also expressly affirms with equal intensity. Labor is an indispensable partner for the nation's progress and stability" ( Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 246) 

In essence, ANGKLA has consistently echoed the arguments posed by the manning agencies that "labor cases pose a threat to international employment of  Filipino seafarers". Such issue was already touched upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Vir-Jen Shipping vs. NLRC  (210 Phil  482), in the following manner:  

"This is not the first time and it will not be the last where the threat of unemployment and loss of jobs would be used to argue against the interests of labor; where efforts by workingmen to better their terms of employment would be characterized as prejudicing the interests of labor as a whole. xxxx The same arguments have greeted every major advance in the rights of the workingman. And they have invariably been proved unfounded and false. Xxx Unionism, employers' liability acts, minimum wages, workmen's compensation, social security and collective bargaining to name a few were all initially opposed by employers and even well meaning leaders of government and society as "killing the hen or goose which lays the golden eggs." The claims of workingmen were described as outrageously injurious not only to the employer but more so to the employees themselves before these claims or demands were established by law and jurisprudence as "rights" and before these were proved beneficial to management, labor, and the nation as a whole beyond reasonable doubt. xxx  If any minor advantages given to Filipino seamen may somehow cut into the profits of local manning agencies and foreign shipowners, that is not sufficient reason why the NSB or the NLRC should not stand by the former instead of listening to unsubstantiated fears that they would be killing the hen which lays the golden eggs."

In the proposed bill that aims to delay in execution, it  becomes a tool of oppression and inequity to the prejudice of labor, and the seafarer to be specific. Due to the longer years that they have to wait, without any leverage in prosecuting his monetary claims, chances are, the employee/ seafarer bows to the demand of his employer to either drop his claim or accept a small settlement. 

In the end, such legislative act runs in contradiction to the constitutional provision  that says "The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare." (Art. II, Sec. 18, Constitution, 1987.). 

Labor/ Seafarers' claims to be delayed by ANGKLA bill placing NLRC/NCMB awards in Escrow

An anti-labor/seafarer bill might be refiled by ANGKLA Partylist during the next Congress if it will be reelected in office, a bill that  is clearly a mere dilatory tactic to stop the labor/  seafarers   from getting what is rightfully due them.

With  House Bill  No. 5430, the worker, or seafarer in this case,  will wait for longer years before they receive the award by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), mostly  for cases involving monetary claims involving disability and death benefits, illegal dismissal as well as unpaid or underpayment of salaries and wages. 

Through HB 5430, ANGKLA  aimed to amend the labor code that will have significant impact on labor claims governing the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions issued by NLRC/NCMB.  

ANGKLA proposes that to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment, the proceeds of execution shall be deposited in an escrow account with an escrow agent designated by the NLRC  or the NCMB. The proceeds shall remain in escrow until such time the finality of the decision issued by the appropriate appellate court is obtained.. The proceeds shall only be released after issuance of an entry of judgment by the appropriate appellate court and upon issuance by the NLRC or the NCMB, after motion of the proper party, of an order authorizing the release of proceeds of execution. The order authorizing the release of the amount deposited in escrow shall be deemed final.

ANGKLA pointed out that the amendment is proper as the problem of the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions gains greater relevance considering the following factors: (a) the complainant will insist on the execution of the NLRC or NCMB decision despite the appeal; (b) even if the appellate courts overturn or modify the NLRC or NCMB decision, there is little hope of recovering anything through restitution; (c) more legal costs and expenses will be incurred in pursuing the case through the appellate courts and in applying for restitution of the judgment award. 

Every labor dispute involves two opposing parties the worker on one side and the management on the other.  And this bill, definitely, is not in favor of labor, proposed by a partylist that projects itself as a protector of seafarers' interest, and labor as a whole. It is obviously a bill that seeks to protect more the respondent companies rather than the seafarers' themselves. 

Away from his family and working on board vessels sailing non-stop for weeks or months the world’s oceans, he is mentally and emotionally stressed. Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant weather changes of extreme hot and cold as the ships cross ocean boundaries, not to mention harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed, injured or ill are high. As if working under these difficult conditions are not enough, when he sustains injury, illness or lose his life, seldom does he receive full compensation provided under the law because his employer does not hesitate to harness its immense resources to limit its liability. 

 In most instances, workers run after benefits that are denied to them. Labor litigation takes years before it reaches the supreme court. In most cases, the elevation of the records alone from the NLRC/NCMB to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will take several years. The proceedings in the appellate court will entail further delay. 
Under the present NLRC rules, workers can receive the judgement award immediately after the NLRC decision becomes final and executory.


In cases of seafarers with medical conditions, some incur huge debts to sustain their medication. Others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released. 

The scenario envisioned by ANGKLA will be analogous to situations described by the the Supreme Court where "the judgment becomes illusory.."Corona International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,343 SCRA 512) 

In one instance, the Supreme Court lamented that   the claimant "has grown old with the case. He fears he may no longer be in this world when the case is finally decided." (Borja vs.  Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 847)  

The prevailing party might  be unable to enjoy  the judgment award  after the lapse of time, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may have no recourse but to delay. Were the rule otherwise, execution pending appeal may well become a tool of oppression and inequity instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice (Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. Philippine Tourism Authority,341 SCRA 90; Yasuda v. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 385)

The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance or postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by  the labor code (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v.  NLRC, 280 SCRA 806, 816.)

In cases of execution pending appeal, the Supreme Court underscored that " the law itself has laid down a compassionate policy which, once more, vivifies and enhances the provisions of the 1987 Constitution on labor and the working man. . . . These duties and responsibilities of the State are imposed not so much to express sympathy for the workingman as to forcefully and meaningfully underscore labor as a primary social and economic force, which the Constitution also expressly affirms with equal intensity. Labor is an indispensable partner for the nation's progress and stability" ( Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 246) 

In essence, ANGKLA has consistently echoed the arguments posed by the manning agencies that "labor cases pose a threat to international employment by Filipino seafarers". Such issue was already touched upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Vir-Jen Shipping vs. NLRC  (210 Phil  482), in the following manner:  

"This is not the first time and it will not be the last where the threat of unemployment and loss of jobs would be used to argue against the interests of labor; where efforts by workingmen to better their terms of employment would be characterized as prejudicing the interests of labor as a whole. xxxx The same arguments have greeted every major advance in the rights of the workingman. And they have invariably been proved unfounded and false.
Unionism, employers' liability acts, minimum wages, workmen's compensation, social security and collective bargaining to name a few were all initially opposed by employers and even well meaning leaders of government and society as "killing the hen or goose which lays the golden eggs." The claims of workingmen were described as outrageously injurious not only to the employer but more so to the employees themselves before these claims or demands were established by law and jurisprudence as "rights" and before these were proved beneficial to management, labor, and the nation as a whole beyond reasonable doubt. xxx  If any minor advantages given to Filipino seamen may somehow cut into the profits of local manning agencies and foreign shipowners, that is not sufficient reason why the NSB or the NLRC should not stand by the former instead of listening to unsubstantiated fears that they would be killing the hen which lays the golden eggs."

In the proposed bill that aims to delay in execution becomes a tool of oppression and inequity to the prejudice of labor, and the seafarer to be specific. Due to the longer years that they have to wait, without any leverage in prosecuting his monetary claims, chances are, the employee/ seafarer bows to the demand of his employer to either drop his claim or accept a small settlement. 
 
Such legislative act runs in contradiction to the constitutional provision  that says "The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare." (Art. II, Sec. 18, Constitution, 1987.).