Decline in OFW purchases of condominium due to inflating taxes

 

 

 Participation  of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)  in Philippine condominium investment has softened materially as they are shifting to  offshore condominium markets.

 

PRIME Philippines  recently  presented a 10-year property market review and multi-year projections during the 2026 Annual Outlook and Media Briefing at Grand Hyatt.

 

PRIME Philippines is the fastest growing real estate service company in the country consistently providing effective integrated real estate solutions to developers, investors, occupiers, land bankers, and other clients.

 

PRIME reported that residential condos are now end-user led, not investor-driven.

 

Investor demand has softened due to compressed rental yields, muted capital appreciation over recent years, and heavy taxes imposed on transactions which structurally weaken condo investment returns.

 

Inflated zonal values ranging from 20-30%  have increased transaction costs through inflating taxes and fee bases.

 

 For ordinary assets used to generate income , taxation erodes roughly 36% of revenue,  30% of which are government taxes.

 

The usual costs include   Value Added Tax (17%), Capital Gains Tax (8%), Broker’s Commission (4%), Documentary Stamp Tax (2%), Association Dues (2%), Real Property Tax (2%), Transfer Tax & Registration Fee (1%).

 

 Higher interest rates weaken borrowing capacity and reduces  mortgage affordability for end-users.

 

PRIME noted that  an estimated 2 in 5 OFWs who previously bought in the Philippines are now allocating to offshore condominium markets. From a pricing perspective, upper-mid condominiums in central Dubai is also reported to be comparable to uppermid Metro Manila proper.

 

Rental yields have also shrunk. With yields ranging 5-10% pre-pandemic, the current state is now at 2-4%, more aligned with global standards.

 

PRIME noted in its 2025 reselling radar that 15-20%  were sold at a loss, 30-40% as “break-even”,  5% with more than 10% returns while the rest  “ on hold”.

 

Buyers increasingly favored house-and-lot living over high-density condominium formats, and developers adapted by launching “new normal” products.

 

PRIME noted that mid to luxury condominiums and residential lots posted estimated value declines of 10% to 25% in 2025. 

 

The more damaging shift was the deterioration in investor confidence following the flood control scandal, which depressed sentiment and prices for luxury assets. As a result, discounting became more aggressive, with developers offering 20–30% discounts.

 

PRIME suggested proper actions to address the several issues confronting the real estate industry: (a) realignment of zonal values for the “interest cut cycle”;  (b) reduce taxation redundancy for the  “weak economic growth”;  (c ) encourage longer mortgages for  declining investor confidence  and (d) first-time home buyer incentive for declining asset values  

 

 According to an Asian Development Bank study conducted in 2023, approximately 27.1% of remittances go into savings or investments, 72.7% of which are allocated towards real estate.

 

OFWs often buy homes for their families back home or as investments for their future. For many Filipino families, owning a home is a top priority, and OFWs play a crucial role in making that dream a reality.

 

In 2020, cash remittances experienced a minor 0.76% decline due to the pandemic, dropping from $30.13 billion in 2019 to $29.9 billion. 

 

In 2021, there was  strong recovery with a 5.1% year-on-year growth to $31.4 billion, driven by the reopening of global economies.

 

In 2022-2023, continued growth driven by land-based and sea-based workers with US$32. 539 billion  in 2022.

 

In 2024,  total personal remittances hit a record high of $38.34 billion, a 3% increase from 2023, representing 8.3% of the country's GDP.

 

As of November 2025 , the BSP data showed personal remittances of $35.73 Billion.

 

In terms of 2024 total  remittances amounting to $34,492,616,000, the sea-based sector sent home $6,941,085,000, or almost 20 percent, while the land-based sector sent home $27,551,532,000.

 

BSP records showed that he sea-based sector’s remittances (in thousand US dollars) for the past 20 years: $1,669,358 in 2005; $1,949,290 in 2006; $2,236,363 in 2007; US$3,034,553 in 2008; US$3,400,412 in 2009; $3,806,108 in 2010; $4,340,416 in 2011; $4,835,342 in 2012; $5,215,378 in 2013; $5,575,722 in 2014; $5,572,148 in 2015; $5,792,459 in 2016, US$6,870,827 in 2017; $6,139,512 in 2018; $6,539,246  in 2019; $6,353,522 in 2020; $6,545,002 in 2021; $6,715,880 in 2022; $6,852,362 in 2023; and $6,941,085 in 2024.

 

Remittances are a major source of foreign currency for the Philippines. This inflow of foreign currency helps support the value of the Philippine Peso, which is important for real estate investors who are looking to purchase property in the country.

 

(Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the Seafarers’ Division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0908-8665786.)

OFW remittances hit record $35 billion in 2025

 

 

Personal remittances  of Overseas Filipinos Workers (OFW)  increased by 3.3 percent to an all time high of US$39.62 billion from US$38.34 billion in 2024, according to  records from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

 

OFW cash remittances in 2025   reached US$35.63 billion, 3.3 percent higher than the US$34.49 billion recorded in 2024.

 

Land -based workers sent cash remittance amounting to US$28.49 billion, up 3.4 percent from 2024  (US$27,551billion). 

 

Sea-based workers remitted USD 7.139 billion in 2025 which is  2.9 percent higher than 2024 (US$6.94 billion).

 

By source, the BSP said the United States accounted for the largest share at 39.7 percent, followed by Singapore (7.3 percent), Saudi Arabia (6.6 percent), Japan (5 percent), and the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates (4.6 percent each).

 

The full-year 2025 cash remittances represented 7.3 percent and 6.4 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI), respectively.

 

Personal remittances represent the total value of money and goods sent by Filipinos working abroad, covering both formal bank transfers and informal channels (like hand-carrying cash).

 

 Cash remittances, a subset of personal remittances, refer exclusively to money sent specifically through bank-to-bank transfers or formal courier services.

 

Essentially, all cash remittances are personal remittances, but not all personal remittances are cash remittances.

 

Personal remittances are considered a more comprehensive metric of total household support, while cash remittances are tracked by the BSP for formal economic impact.

 

A weak peso often encourages higher remittances as the value of foreign currency increases in Philippine pesos.

 

Remittances provide macroeconomic benefits to the Philippine economy, where a significant portion of the population lives and works abroad.

 

They augment foreign currency reserves, alleviate pressure on the exchange rate, and reduce the need for foreign borrowing.

 

From 2015 to 2025, cash remittances reached   US$25.607B in 2015; US$26.900B in 2016; US$28.060B in 2017; US$28.943B in 2018; US$30.133B in 2019 ; US$29.903B in 2020; US$31.42B in 2021; US$32.539B in 2022; US$33.490B in 2023; US$34.492B in 2024;  and US$35.63B in 2025.               

 

These cash remittances formed part of the personal remittances that reached US$28.308B in  2015; US$29.706B in  2016; US$31.288B in   2017; US$32,213 in            2018; US$33.467B in   2019; US$33.194B in 2020; US$34.88B in 2021; US$36.14B in 2022; US$37.2B in 2023; US$38.34B in 2024; and $39.62B in 2025.           

 

In terms of deployment, the Department of Migrant Workers  (DMW) reported that the total number of Filipino seafarers deployed overseas reached 376,663 in 2017; 337,502 in 2018; 507,730 in 2019; 217,223 in 2020; 345.52 in 2021; 385,239 in 2022; 549,249 in 2023;  and 549,339 in 2024. 589,179 in 2025

 

The sea-based sector’s remittances (in thousand US dollars) for the past two decades: $1,669,358 in 2005; $1,949,290 in 2006; $2,236,363 in 2007; US$3,034,553 in 2008; US$3,400,412 in 2009; $3,806,108 in 2010; $4,340,416 in 2011; $4,835,342 in 2012; $5,215,378 in 2013; $5,575,722 in 2014; $5,572,148 in 2015; $5,792,459 in 2016, US$6,870,827 in 2017; $6,139,512 in 2018; $6,539,246 in 2019; $6,353,522 in 2020; $6,545,002 in 2021; $6,715,880 in 2022; $6,852,362 in 2023;  $6,941,085 in 2024 and $7,139,028 in 2025.

 

The data showed the yearly increase of seafarers’ remittances (in thousand US dollars) in 2006 ($279,930) 2007 ($287,073), 2008 ($798,190), 2009 ($365,859), 2010 (US$405,696), 2011 (US$534,308), 2012 ($494,926), 2013 ($380,036), 2014 ($360,344), 2015 ($220,311), 2016 (US$220,311), 2017 ($1,078, 368), 2018 (US$731,315), 2019 ($399,734), 2021 ($191,480) 2022 ($172,878),  2023 ($136,482), 2024 ($88,723) and 2025 ($197,943).

 

The remittances decreased in two years: 2015 by $3,574 and 2020 by $185,724.

 

Unlike land-based OFWs, the DMW Seafarer Employment Contract (SEC) mandates that a Filipino seafarer has to make an allotment which shall be at least 80 percent of the seafarer’s “monthly basic salary”, payable once a month to his designated allottee in the Philippines.

 

Basic wage  under the DMW SEC is defined as “the salary of the seafarer exclusive of overtime, leave pay”.

 

However, under the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers, the allotment shall be at least 80 percent of the seafarer’s “monthly salary.” The word “basic” was omitted .

 

The monthly salary shall now consist of basic wage plus fixed or guaranteed overtime. significantly increasing the total amount that must be sent home.

 

Seafarers have expressed concern that this restricts their ability to manage their own money, leaving them with only 20% to cover personal expenses, "crucial savings," or emergencies while on board.

 

While the law mandates that remittances be converted using the actual bank exchange rate at the time of transfer, concerns persist about inconsistencies in the rates applied by different agencies, principals, or banks.

 

 (Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho is the junior partner   of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0908-8665786.)

The party-list system and the seafarers’ votes

The votes of the  Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), both landbased and seabased, are now being courted by groups aiming political seats through the party-list representation.

Around 134 groups will vie for 59 seats allotted for the party list in the House of Representatives

Party-list representation utilize the tendency for proportional representation systems to favor single-issue parties, and applies that tendency to allow underrepresented sectors to represent themselves in the law-making process.

The party-lists system was introduced in the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7941 (the Party-List Law) to provide a balance for locality-based lawmakers, who are almost always elected on the basis of their popularity and the money that they release. The Constitution allots 20% Lower House membership from Partylist nominees, maximum at three nominees each, dependent on votes they gather nationwide. 

The Overseas Absentee Voting Act was passed in 2003, allowing Filipinos overseas to vote for who they want to be president, vice-president, senators, and party-list representatives.

POEA 2017  data shows that out of the 1,992,746 deployed  OFWs,   1,614,674 are landbased while 378,072 are seabased. In terms of remittances, the seabased sector sent home US$6,139,512.00 while the land based sector gave US$22,803,603,000.00.

Due to their absence during the election period, seafarers, who are registered overseas voters, may cast their ballots  60 days before the day of elections through two specialized modes:  personal voting or, in case of postal voting, in any post with international seaports as identified and recommended by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Seafarers may vote at any post, specifically Philippine embassies, consulates, foreign service establishments and other Philippine government agencies maintaining offices abroad, e.g., the Philippine Overseas Labor Offices (POLO).

In personal voting, seafarers voting shall be conducted in the designated posts.

In postal voting, ballots for seafarers shall be distributed proportionately among posts with identified international seaports. These ballots shall be in the custody of the post for the entire voting period.  The seafarer shall personally claim the mailing packet at the post, accomplish the official ballot contained in a mailing packet; and submit the accomplished ballot which shall then be  disposed in accordance with the procedures on postal voting.

COMELEC records show that seafarers who have registered to be OAVs number 43,033 as of 2019. This is less than 2016’s 49,339. The most seafaring OAVs are from Europe (22,433), followed by North and Latin America (10,468), Asia Pacific (7,662), and the Middle East and Africa (2,470).

But the strength of the seafarers’ votes are essentially felt through  their families residing in the Philippines.

For the seafaring sector, two party-list groups are campaigning for this year’s mid-term election.

 MARINO Partylist was  formed in 2014 by seafarers and stakeholders from the maritime community mostly in Mindanao. They are pursuing advocacies that aims to make significant and meaningful changes and reforms in the maritime industry.

 On the other hand, ANGKLA was  founded in 2011 and won for 2 consecutive terms in 2013 and 2016.

A news report noted that ANGKLA prioritizes business matters; MARINO appeals for seafarers (but backed by big-time business).

Several groups have called for the repeal or the amendment of the party-list law as political dynasties have "hijacked" the system, supposed to be a platform for representation of marginalized sectors. The rosters of party-list representatives in previous Congresses had been hit for being recycled lists of people already in power.

A study noted that at least 49 party-list nominees in the upcoming midterm elections are part of a political dynasty or families that have more than one member elected to a public post. If their parties garner enough votes, the nominees could occupy 83 percent of the 59 party-list seats in the House of Representatives

(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)

Beneficiaries of seafarer’s death compensation

The legal battle for death compensation of the deceased seafarer, in some instances, becomes a  “telenovela” case due to confusion as to the rightful recipients of the death benefits.

Under an employment contract duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), in the case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract,  the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. The amount usually is higher if the death is covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

The confusion arise since the terms 'allottee' and 'beneficiary' were  undefined in the previous POEA employment contracts.

Under the current contract, the 'allottee' is the person designated by the seafarer as the recipient of his or her salary allotment.

On the other hand, the beneficiary is the person(s) to whom the death compensation and other benefits are paid and is based on the Philippine law on succession. Thus, not all allottees are automatically considered as beneficiaries.

Simply stated, the right of the allottee, as the terms suggest, is limited to the allotment of the seafarer which is equivalent to at least 80% of his or her monthly basic salary.

Legal or intestate succession takes place if a person dies without a will. And in the absence of heirs instituted in a will, the law vests the inheritance, in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the deceased, in the surviving spouse, and in the State in accordance with the rules set forth in the New Civil Code (NCC), Articles 960 and 961.

The law on rules on legal or intestate succession provides that in every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones and that the succession to property by heirs pertains first to the direct descending line (Articles 962 and 978). 

Thus, if a seafarer's mother is his allottee and he dies survived by his wife and one child, the death compensation is paid to the wife and child and not to the mother, in accordance with the Philippine law on succession.

If a widow/ widower  and legitimate children are left, the surviving spouse  is entitled to the same share as that of each of the children.

When the widow/ widower  survives with legitimate parents, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the death benefits, and the legitimate parents to the other half. 

If a widow/widower survives with illegitimate children, she/he  shall be entitled to one-half of the death  benefits, and the illegitimate children  to the other half. 

            An illegitimate child shall receive a share equivalent to half of the legitimate child's share. 

If legitimate parents, the surviving spouse, and illegitimate children are left, the parents  shall be entitled to one-half of the death benefits, and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so that such widow  shall have one-fourth of the death benefits, and the illegitimate children the other fourth. 

An adopted child is entitled   in the same manner as a legitimate child.

In case of a legal separation, if the surviving spouse gave cause for the separation, he or she shall not have any of the rights granted by law.

As long as the marriage was not annulled at the time of death, the surviving legitimate  spouse will enjoy the rights regardless of their years of physical separation.

The basis of the rules on intestate succession was explained by the Supreme Court in this manner: “The law of intestacy is founded on the presumed will of the deceased. Love, it is said, first descends, then ascends, and finally, spreads sideways. Thus, the law first calls the descendants, then the ascendants and, finally, the collaterals, always preferring those closer in degree to those of remoter degrees, on the assumption that the deceased would have done so had he manifested his last will. Lastly, in default of anyone called to succession or bound to the decedent by ties of blood or affection, it is in accordance with his presumed will that his property be given to charitable or educational institutions, and thus contribute to the welfare of humanity.” (In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay (GR No. 183053; June 16, 2010)

 (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)

Jurisdiction for crimes committed at sea

Here is an interesting piece which I lifted from the website of Australian parliament  (https://www.aph.gov.au)   with respect to crimes committed at sea. I just replaced Australia with the word State.

Enforcement jurisdiction is the ability of a country to legally arrest, try, or convict  an individual for a breach of its laws.

Crimes committed at sea present a ‘dynamic legal scenario’ where international law recognizes a multitude of domestic jurisdictions existing concurrently. At all times, a ship is subject to the domestic laws of the country in which it is registered, but it can also be within the territorial jurisdiction of another country whilst transiting its waters and in its ports, and thereby subject to that second country’s laws. Further, where a citizen is involved in a criminal offence, either as an alleged perpetrator or as a victim, their country of citizenship is recognized under international law as also having jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the crime. A criminal act committed on board will therefore often lead to potentially competing jurisdictional claims

Enforcement jurisdiction under international law

A country will only be entitled to prosecute a crime (exercising enforcement jurisdiction) if it has recognized  grounds to claim jurisdiction over the event in international law, and its domestic law expressly asserts that jurisdiction.

As a matter of general international law, a country may invoke jurisdiction – and apply its domestic laws and enforce sanctions for criminal conduct – in a variety of circumstances, including:

a.           - where criminal conduct occurs within their territory (territorial principle);

b.       -     where one of their citizens is involved (for example, as either a victim or perpetrator) in the crime (nationality principle and the passive personality principle);

c.              where the conduct is so heinous and so widely condemned that all nations proscribe and punish its occurrence (for example, piracy, genocide and hostage taking) (universal principle);

d.            where the criminal conduct has a significantly adverse impact on its national security or governmental process (protective principle).

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS)

The international rules and principles governing the regulation of ocean space are captured by UNCLOS. UNCLOS accords countries with specific jurisdictional zones and corresponding rights in ocean space adjacent to their territory. Territorial jurisdiction operates like concentric circles, ranging from full territorial sovereignty within internal waters, to almost no sovereign rights on the high seas. These maritime zones are measured from the Territorial Sea Baseline (TSB), the low-water line along the coast.

Under UNCLOS, the zones in which a state  can exercise its territorial jurisdiction can be classified in the following order (with diminishing capacity to enforce domestic law the further out from the TSB):

a.        Internal waters (all waters landward of the TSB);

b.       Territorial sea (12 nautical miles (nm) from the TSB)

c.       Contiguous zone (from 12nm to 24nm from the TSB);

d.       Exclusive economic zone (no further than 200nm from the TSB);

e.       Continental shelf; and

f.        High seas.

High seas, or ‘international waters’, are ‘open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked’. International waters are considered to be outside the territorial jurisdiction of any country. However, in limited circumstances, the state  may exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Territorial jurisdiction

 There are two categories of territorial jurisdiction that would allow a country to enforce its criminal laws against an alleged criminal act committed whilst at sea: Port State jurisdiction and Coastal State jurisdiction. Jurisdiction beyond these two categories – in the ‘contiguous zone’ and the ‘exclusive economic zone’ – is severely limited.

Port state jurisdiction

 If a criminal act occurred when the ship is in internal waters (all waters landward of the TSB) having visited a port or about to visit a port, or when the ship has departed the port and is now in the territorial sea of the state(12nm from the TSB), then the state can claim jurisdiction over the alleged criminal offence, provided that the relevant criminal legislation expresses its extra-territorial application.

Coastal state jurisdiction

Under limited circumstances, a coastal State may exercise its territorial jurisdiction if the ship is not visiting a port of that State but is travelling through its territorial sea (out to 12 nm from the TSB).

 UNCLOS provides that a State may only exercise this type of jurisdiction where:

1.       - The ‘consequences’ of the crime extends to the coastal State;

2.       - Is of a kind to disturb the peace of the State or the good order of the State’s territorial sea; 

 I     - if the assistance of the State is requested by the Master of the Ship; or

3.       - The matter involves the specific case of the illicit traffic of narcotic drugs.

Jurisdiction based on the nationality of the accused or victim

A  state    may claim jurisdiction under general international law where its  citizen is either an accused or a victim of the alleged crime. These are understood as the nationality principle and the passive personality principle respectively. International law provides that when a criminal act is committed by its citizen, the latter’s  state has the power to prosecute that citizen according to its domestic laws no matter where the crime took place The passive personality principle provides for the state  to prosecute crimes committed against its own citizens outside its territory under certain circumstances.

Flag state jurisdiction

Under UNCLOS,  the flag state (the country in which the ship is registered) has primary responsibility over its ship, including criminal jurisdiction, even when the ship is outside the flag state’s territorial waters. A general principle is that the internal operation of a ship which is regulated by the laws of a foreign state on an ongoing basis, as ships move around the world and the general law that the flag state has primacy of jurisdiction on the high seas.

However, given that vessels are generally flagged in distant states, flag states’ ability to play an active role in investigations and/or prosecutions can be extremely limited.

The 120/240 day rule on seafarer's disability cases

The number of days under medication is a significant element in determining the disability benefits of  a seafarer who was a medically repatriated.  

The  seafarer's standard employment contract of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)    enumerates under Section 20(A)(3) the three classes of benefits the seafarers are entitled to if the illness or injury is considered as work connected:

  (a)     sickness allowance not to exceed 120 days of  basic wage.

 (b)     medical expenses until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been    established by the company-designated physician.

  (c)     compensation in accordance with the    schedule of benefits governed by the rates and the rules        of compensation. 

In many instances, the period within which the company-designated physician  issues a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading is a contentious factor  in the determination of compensation due to the seafarer. 

The  Supreme Court  laid down (Elburg Shipmgt.  Phils vs. Ernesto Quiogue, G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015)     the following guidelines that shall govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability benefits:

1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

Under the prevailing doctrine on disability claims of Filipino seafarers. when the company-designated physician makes an assessment of the seafarer’s disability rating within the period of 120 days from medical repatriation, such assessment becomes final. 

The additional 120 days (or a total of 240 days) from repatriation is given to the company-designated physician to provide further treatment to the seafarer and, “thereafter, make a declaration as to the nature of the latter’s disability.”


Failure to obtain any gainful employment for more than 120 days after his medical repatriation, or inability to continue his work as a seaman for the same period does not mean that a seafarer’s disability should be considered permanent and total.

The  Supreme Court further clarified that for the company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he must first perform some significant act to justify an extension (e.g., that the illness still requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days); otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total. (Jebsens Maritime, et.al. v. Florvin Rapiz (G.R. No. 218871. January 11, 2017)

A seafarer is considered as  suffering permanent total disability if the medical statement of the company doctor  is  devoid of any definitive declaration as to the seafarer's  capacity  to return to work or at least a categorical and final degree of disability.

There is no "definitive assessment" where the company-designated physician noted that seafarer's wound was still open and that he was to continue his medications  (Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015) If he fails to do so and the seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.(Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta,  G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 624, 626) 

Such principle is more apparent in  event that  the seafarer  has remained unemployed as a seafarer for more than 240 days from the time of his repatriation  or he was unable to perform the same physical activities he used to perform prior to his injury.  ( Belchem Phils./UPL  vs. Eduardo  Zafra G.R. No. 204845               June 15, 2015) 

A total disability does not require that the employee be completely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his or her usual work and earn from it.   (Fil-Star Maritime Corp., et.al. vs. Hanziel Rosete, G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011), Permanent disability is the inability of the worker to perform his job , regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. (Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd.,  vs. Benedicto Suganob, G.R. No. 168753, July 9, 2008,  )

*

Illegal Seafarer's Loans

Appropriate criminal and administrative penalties will be imposed  on persons or entities involved in loan  transactions which are considered  violations under the Amended Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (AMWA) R.A.  No. 10022 and the  Revised POEA Rules and Regulations  2016   in relation to the  recruitment and employment of Filipino seafarers: 

1. 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 and its implementing Rules and Regulations

 

2.  Withholding of seafarer’s salaries or remittances, SSS contributions and loan amortization or shortchanging/reduction thereof without justifiable reasons.The penalty shall include the release of the salaries or remittances being claimed

 

3. Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby a seafarer is required to avail of a loan from a specifically designated institution, entity, or person.

 

4. 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

 

5. Refuse 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 aforesaid less serious offenses may vary based on the frequency of violations:

              1st Offense — Suspension of License (2 to 6 Months) 

              2nd Offense — Suspension of License (6 Months and 1 day to 1 year) 

              3rd Offense — Suspension of License (1 year and 1 day to 2  years) 

              4th Offense — Cancellation of License 

 

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. This provision shall not apply to consolidated cases unless there are five (5) or more complainants in any of the consolidated cases. 

 

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

The revised rules was passed in accordance with the POEA'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;