Changing of the guards in seafarer’s cause

 With two seats as party-list representatives ,  the  major challenge of  MARINO   is to confront the questions raised on the qualification  of its first three   nominees who are not seafarers.

The results of the recent  party-list election  saw  the changing of the guards for the Filipino seafaring industry  as  Marino  replaced  incumbent Angkla.

In previous elections, several sea-based groups  attempted to gain slots in  Congress through the party-list system. 

Two parties run twice but failed to reach the required votes:  Maritime Party  in 2001 and 2004 while  Seaman’s Party run  in 2004 and 2007.

In 2010, three parties campaigned but also failed: Adhikaing Alay ng Marino sa Sambayanan (ALON)  with 49,893 votes , Ang Kapisanan ng mga Seaman (AKSI) with  26,805 votes, and United Filipino Seafarers (UFS)   with  6,121 votes.  

Angkla entered the political scene in 2013 competing with another group, Association of Marine Officer and Ratings (Amor Seaman). DIWA also carried the seafarers’ issues.  Angkla , won a seat ranking 26^th with  360,138 votes while  Amor  lost ranking  111^th for 40,849 votes. 

The 2016  election witnessed again  the race  between Angkla and Amor. As an incumbent, Angkla retained its seat but   dropped to 32^nd  place with 337, 245  votes which is 22,893 votes lower than that in 2013.  Marino made a debut  ranking 79^th place with 102,430 votes.  Amor ranked    87^th place with 68,226 votes.  

During this year’s midterm election, Angkla’s popularity continued to slide  down after occupying  the  53^rd slot  with  179,531 votes.  This is lower by 157,714 votes in 2016. As a consequence,  Angkla  came short of almost 12,000 votes to retain its  seat in Congress for a third term.

The problem besetting the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for seafarers affected Angkla’s candidacy. Seafarers complained that the process for obtaining and renewing their license became more difficult when the functions of Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) were transferred to the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) by virtue of Angkla’s R.A. 10635.  MARINA was designated as the Single Maritime Administration to implement the  STCW.

Angkla’s decline could likewise  be attributed to the impression that it   prioritize   business matters rather than the basic seafarers’ issues. As Angkla was born in the boardroom with corporate genes, it    is heavily supported by the groups of manning agencies as well as shipowners.

It echoed the manning agencies in depicting  lawyers assisting seafarers for their legal claims as ambulance chasers when it authored  R. A.  No. 10706 (Seafarers Protection Act).

It even filed H.B. No. 5430 on February 2015  aimed to delay the execution of  NLRC/NCMB award  for cases involving monetary claims.

The  negative perception on  Angkla led to the shift of  seafarers’ support to Marino for this year’s election.

Marino  waves a Five-Point priority: cadet scholarships, family centers, trainings, free legal services and decentralization.

Despite  the fact that its  first  three  nominees are not seafarers, Marino placed seventh in ranking for its 677,378 votes.  It is  backed by big-time Davao-based businesses  and has  close ties with the Dutertes.  

Several groups have earlier  called for the repeal or amendment of the party-list law as political dynasties and businessmen 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 and those with business interest.

Poll watchdog Kontra Daya  earlier raised red flags on party-list groups that have nominees that do not belong to the marginalized sectors they are supposed to represent.  Its    true intent   should be upheld  so that “only those that champion the marginalized and under-represented would emerge victorious”.

It is the group  as a whole that should be  evaluated  but  it cannot be denied that the identity of the nominees remains a significant reference for voters. Oftentimes, a party-list is voted based on political ads without actually knowing it or its platform.

Preliminary  reports noted  that seafarer deployment hit  337,502 in 2018 with remittance reaching US$6,139,512,000.

As the incoming congressmen are not seafarers, MARINO must prove that it is worthy of the Filipino  seafarers’   vote as their party-list representatives  that will genuinely protect their interest and not that of capital  to the prejudice of their labor rights. Otherwise, they will face the   2022 election with a bitter pill and suffer the same fate of Angkla.

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

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)

Blacklisting as an industry retaliatory practice

Many Filipino seafarers are reluctant to file complaints against their manning agents due to the so called “blacklisting”, a practice used by manning agents to prevent certain seafarers being employed.

There is both “legal” and “illegal” blacklisting of seafarers.  

The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) comes up with a blacklist (also called watchlist)  of seafarers as a form of legal sanction if a complaint of breach of discipline is filed against the  seafarer with the Adjudication Office or Regional Office.

 Seafarers who face penalties after final judgment are blacklisted. Included in the list are those disqualified from overseas employment until cleared by the POEA or until their suspension is served or lifted.

However, illegal blacklisting became a hidden industry practice where manning agencies make  statements or communications  that tend to influence or prejudice the mind of any employer against the person  seeking employment.

Blacklisting is the nefarious practice of blocking future employment of seafarers who complain about unjust treatment, safety standards, poor working conditions or unpaid wages, among others.  

Manning agencies in the Philippines will blacklist seafarers for speaking out against their employers preventing them from being hired in the industry again. Manning agents secretly circulate among themselves derogatory remarks and pictures as a retaliatory act against critical seafarers who  they consider as “troublemakers”.

Those who assert their rights are more often than not  labeled as 'troublemakers.' Their names are put on the 'blacklists' held by manning agencies and 'watchlists' held by the POEA. The practice usually destroys the future not only of seafarers but of their dependents as well.

Blacklisting can throw seafarers and whole dependent families unjustly into a sea of uncertainty and unemployment, affecting them for a lifetime.

 ILO’s Convention 179 “prohibits recruitment and placement services from using means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter seafarers from gaining employment.”

Under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (which came into force in 2013, and has been ratified by 81 countries covering more than 90% of the world’s merchant fleet) empowers seafarers to report violations directly to their flag state authorities while remaining under the protection of the convention. Those flag state authorities must then investigate complaints, and they also must protect seafarers from retaliation. Alternatively, seafarers can report violations to port state authorities, who similarly must conduct an initial investigation and protect the seafarers’ confidentiality 

However, many seafarers remain skeptical of whether their unions, organizations or flag states will protect them from retaliation for reporting offences. 

Under POEA rules, the seafarer  may face sanctions by  the commission of any of the following  offenses which shall be a ground for disciplinary action:

A. Pre-Employment Offenses

1. Using, providing, or submitting false information or documents for purposes of job application or employment.

2. Unjustified refusal to depart for the worksite after all employment and travel documents have been duly approved by the appropriate government agency/ies.

B. Offenses during Employment

1. Commission of a felony or crime punishable by Philippine Laws or by the laws of the host
country;

2. Unjustified breach of employment contract;

3. Embezzlement of company funds or monies and/or properties of a fellow worker entrusted 
for delivery to kin or relatives in the Philippines; and

4. Violation/s of the sacred practices of the host country.

An administrative complaint or disciplinary action against the seafarer may be filed before the  POEA, who,  after due investigation, may  impose penalties ranging from suspension  to  delisting, depending on the gravity of the offense and the frequency of the violation(s).

When seafarers rightfully complain, they should not be punished for life. Yet if a seafarer appears on a blacklist their maritime career, often the only job open to them, is over.

 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)

Mutiny as ground for dismissal

IN SOME instances, Filipino seafarers who aggressively assert their rights are wrongfully accused of mutiny, leading to the early termination of their contract by dismissal.

Mutiny is conspiracy of overt act of defiance, oppose or attack upon ship authority by two or more seafarers subject to such authority. The term is occasionally used to describe nonmilitary instances of defiance or attack — such as mutiny on board a merchant ship.

Mutiny comes from an old verb, “mutine”, which means “revolt”, and a mutiny is still like a revolt. But mutiny should be distinguished from revolt or rebellion, which involves a more widespread defiance and which generally have a political objective.

Mutiny is regarded as a most serious offense, especially aboard ships at sea. Because the safety of the ship was thought to depend upon the submission of all persons on board to the will of the captain, wide disciplinary powers are given to the commanding officer.

Seafarers are not usually adamant in standing for their rights for fear of retaliation from the company or its officers on board, including dismissal based on fabricated grounds. Their concerted action to question in some cases are viewed as insubordination, desertion, mutiny or attempt to desert the vessel or refusal to sail with the vessel

The Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC 2006) recognizes the seafarers’ rights to decent conditions of work on almost every aspect of their working and living conditions including, among others, hours of work or rest, payment of wages, paid annual leave, repatriation at the end of contract, onboard medical care, accommodation, food and catering, health and safety protection and accident prevention.

The employer has the burden to prove that the dismissal of a seafarer is based on a valid cause. To discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence – or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion – that the cause of the seafarer’s dismissal was valid. Specifically, the employer must comply with the following requisites:(1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee to be dismissed must have been afforded due process of law

In a case, the Supreme Court downplayed the company’s argument of “mutiny” as ground for dismissal since there is no record in the logbook or journal of the ship to indicate that the Filipino seafarers, who were terminated from their employment, threatened to cease and desist from working and to abandon their vessel as a result of the misunderstanding that happened between the Ship Master and a Filipino crew member. (NFD vs. Ilagan etc. G.R. No. 165389, October 17, 2008)

When a seafarer commits such violations, he may be penalized by the master of the vessel with dismissal and be made to pay the cost of repatriation and his replacement.

Additionally, an administrative complaint or disciplinary action against the seafarer may be filed before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that, after due investigation, may  impose penalties ranging from suspension to delisting, depending on the frequency of the violation(s).

Under the “two-notice rule”, an erring seafarer is given a written notice of the charge against him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty (including dismissal from service) and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; but just the same, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the findings.

In case of an illegal dismissal, a seafarer is entitled to receive from his employers his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, not merely his salaries for three months for every year of the unexpired term.

(Atty. Dennis Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)./

Dubious Certificate of Fitness in disability claims

The Supreme Court warned companies from issuing dubious Certificate of Fitness which it described as “a ploy that aims to take advantage of the worker’s lack of sufficient legal knowledge and his desperate circumstances”

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a young seafarer who sought payment of permanent total disability benefits for contracting bipolar disorder during his employment, an  illness that  was declared  work-related and aggravated by the harsh treatment he received from the ship officers (Career Shipmanagement vs. Eduardo Godinez, G.R. No. 206826, October 2, 2017)

The supreme Court emphasized the circumstances on how the alleged Certificate of Fitness for Work was  executed by the seafarer (during the medication process)   and was used by the company to serve as proof of his state of health in an effort to deny his claims for total disability benefits.

            

The  court considered  the seafarer’s  declaration as  not competent since he  is not a trained physician,  and it cannot take the place of the company-designated physician’s assessment required by law and the POEA contract

The Court warns against the continued use of underhanded tactics that undermine the interests of labor, damages the integrity of the legal profession, mock the judicial process as a whole, and insult the intelligence of the Court.  In prosecuting a client’s case, the Court reminded the company’s counsels that there are multiple ways of securing victory, other than through fabrication, prevarication, and guile.

The manner in which the seafarer  was dealt with in the proceedings, the Court emphasized,  evinces a perverse attempt to evade liability by fabricating evidence and utilizing objectionable and oppressive means and schemes to secure victory.  It constitutes an affront, not only to the Court, but to all honest workingmen earning a living through hard work and risking their lives for their families.

In a related case,     the fact that a Certification of Fitness was executed, it should no also t be considered as a bar in seafarer’s availment of second medical opinion from his personal doctor and later to seek relief from a legal forum.

               To adopt and paraphrase  the Supreme Court’s wisdom in Mercury Drug vs. Dayao, ( 202 Phil 424) , the company’s  contention that its employees fully understood what they signed when they executed the Certificate of Fitness  and that they should be bound by their voluntary commitment's is anachronistic in this time and age. The worker  is  at a disadvantage insofar as the contractual relationship is  concerned. Workers in our country do not have the luxury or freedom of  refusing to sign a Certificate of Fitness even when some terms and conditions of employment are not only onerous and inequitous but illegal. It is precisely because of this situation that the framers of the Constitution embodied the provisions on social justice (Section 6, Article II) and protection to labor (Section 9, Article II) in the Declaration of Principles And State Policies. It is pursuant to these constitutional mandates that the courts are ever vigilant to protect the rights of workers who are places in contractually disadvantageous positions and who sign waivers or provisions contrary to law and public policy.

 In labor jurisprudence, it is well-established that quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the employees do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from the unfair labor practice of the employer. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims and/or complete releases are against public policy and, therefore, null and void. The acceptance of termination pay does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts. [3]

In the Cariño vs. ACCFA case (L-19808, Sept. 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 183)  , the Supreme Court  said "acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. The reason is plain. Employer and employee, obviously, do not stand on the same footing. The employer drove the employee to the wall. The latter must have to get hold of money. Because, out of job, he had to face the harsh necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to resist money proffered. His, then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. One thing sure, however, is that petitioners did not relent their claim. They pressed it. They are deemed not to have waived any of their rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur."

 In More Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC (366 Phil. 646, 653-654), the Court ruled that the law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from demanding benefits to which he is entitled. Quitclaims executed by the employees are thus commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the worker's legal rights, considering the economic disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial necessity. Thus, it is never enough to assert that the parties have voluntarily entered into such a quitclaim. There are other requisites, to wit: (a) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (b) that the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

This principle was utilized In the case of Var-orient  Shipping  Co. vs. Flores (October 6, 2010 G.R. No. 161934  when  the Supreme Court took cognizance of the illegality of the Certification of Fitness to Work.   It noted that the Receipt and Quitclaim executed by the seafarer  lacks the elements of voluntariness and free will and, therefore, does not absolve employers  from liability in paying him the sickness wages and other monetary claims. A perusal of the provisions of the Receipt and Quitclaim shows that seafarer  would be releasing and discharging the employers  from all claims, demands, causes of action, and the like in an all-encompassing manner, including the fact that he had not contracted or suffered any illness or injury in the course of his employment and that he was discharged in good and perfect health. These stipulations clearly placed the seafarer  in a disadvantageous position vis-á-vis the employers .

The certificate of fitness to work executed by a seafarer  cannot prevail in the labor  cases since the worker,  untrained in the medical arts, is not in possession of sufficient knowledge to expertly asses his true and correct health status. For while a person can assess his general health, he cannot do so with respect to his medical condition which undoubtedly require a trained man learned in the medical arts, to properly diagnose and treat. It could not be said that a layman possess the requisite level of knowledge and expertise which took years of learning and experience for a trained cardiologist to acquire.  Therefore,    the  act of preying upon the ignorance of the petitioner must not be countenanced by our labor courts

Moreover,  it must be stressed that the POEA SEC recognizes the right of seafarers to seek a second opinion to contest the certification issued by the company doctor, in this case, the “fit to work” certification. To insist that the seafarer is barred from seeking opinion is tantamount to a violation of the POEA SEC’s terms and conditions. 

---

[3] Cariño vs. ACCFA, L-19808, Sept. 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 183; Philippine Sugar Institute vs. CIR, L-13475, Sept. 29, 1960, 109 Phil. 452; Mercury Drug Co. vs. CIR, L-23357, April 30, 1974, 56 SCRA 694, 704.

Violations of company policies and regulations as grounds for dismissal

 Violations of   company policies and regulations  are considered valid grounds for dismissal under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration- Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which cover  any  of the following acts:

 a. pilferage or theft of ship’s store or cargo

 b. pilferage or theft of ships property, of crews or passengers or other persons with business at the ship.

 c. embezzlement of company   funds

 d. unauthorized disposal of   company ship’s properties for personal gain

 e. any act of dishonesty with intention to defraud the company

 f. gross negligence and failure to observe proper storage and  cargo handling procedures

        resulting in delay of ships     and/or damage to cargoes

 g. failure to observe and comply         with regulation and non- baggage shipment and        acceptance of parcels on board

 h.  failure to observe        regulations on expiration of        shore liberty

 i.  being left behind by ship in        foreign port without justifiable        reason

 j. disorderly conduct and/or        disrespect towards        passengers or other persons

 k. for immorality so as to cast        aspersion on the good name of        the ship and company

 l. inflicting harm or injury to others

Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer’s rules, in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his length of service and the number of violations committed during his employ. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice,  whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment (PLDT vs. NLRC , 303 SCRA 9). 

When a seafarer commits such violations,  he may be penalized by the master of the vessel with dismissal and be made to pay the cost of repatriation and his replacement. Additionally, an administrative complaint or disciplinary action against the seafarer may be filed before the POEA, who,  after due investigation, may  impose penalties ranging from suspension  to  delisting, depending on the frequency of the violation(s).

Under the "two-notice rule", an erring seafarer is given a written notice of the charge against him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; but just the same, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the findings (Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira 440 Phil. 906 (2002)

In case of an  illegal dismissal,  a seafarer is  entitled to receive from his employers His salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract not merely  his salaries for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term.

It is well-settled that the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. In order to discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence, which is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, and not based on mere surmises or conjectures (MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC., vs. TORIBIO C. A VESTRUZ,, G.R. No. 207010   February 18, 2015) 

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,  )

*