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

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.

2017: Twenty Second National Seafarers Day

The   Twenty Second  National Seafarers' Day was celebrated on  September 24, 2017    with the theme "MARINONG FILIPINO: NAG-UUGNAY SA MUNDO" . The Manila celebration was held at the Cuneta Astrodome. 

Former president Fidel V. Ramos earlier issued on July 9, 1996 Proclamation No. 828 declaring August 18 as National Seafarers Day wherein  the Apostleship of the Sea (AOS) was tasked to coordinate with the public and private sector in   activities related to the celebration of said event. The purpose of the Proclamation is to give due recognition to the vital role of Filipino seafarers towards the development of the Philippines as a maritime country. Later,  Proclamation No.1094 was issued in 1997 by President Ramos which moved NSD    to every  last Sunday of September every year. 

The #NSD22 #NSD2017 activities nationwide led by the #ApostleshipoftheSea ( #AOS ) include the Memorial at Sea, High Mass, Oratorical/ Art/ Photo Contest, Harana by the Bay, Boodlefight, Karaoke challenge, and the Search for Top Ten Outstanding Maritime Students. One of the highlights is the Grand Parade participated in by more than 4000 stakeholders from maritime schools, government agencies, manning agencies, training centers, maritime organizations, unions, families and private institutions

    The high mass was celebrated by  Cubao Bishop Honesto Ongtioco while MARINA administrator Marcial Amaro III  was the guest  speaker.  

The  seventh    batch of   recipients for the Ten Outstanding Maritime Students of the Philippines (TOMSP) search (in line with the National Seafarers Day) were awarded on that day.  It  gave recognition to students for being academically excellent, highly competent in practice, in good moral standing and active in their respective communities. 

Dionel Alfaro of Asian Institute of Maritime Studies (AIMS) Pasay 

Ronald Christ Capindo of John B Lacson Colleges Foundation  Bacolod

Nelyvette Claire Dela Cruz of Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP) Bataan

Janine Elican of John B Lacson Colleges Foundation  Bacolod

Eugene Mark Genilsa of John B Lacson Colleges Foundation  Molo

John Michael Ibanez University of Cebu  Lapulapu and Mandaue

Loren Negapatan of MAAP Bataan

Patrick Allan Peralta of MAAP Bataan

Karl Japeth Rosal of MAAP Bataan

Honey Grace Ysulan of Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA)

Negligence causing damage loss, spoilage or deterioration of ship’s stocks and property

It is settled that 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

One  of  the twenty one (21) offenses which are considered valid grounds for dismissal under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration- Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC),  include those causing through neglect, damage loss, spoilage or deterioration of ship’s stocks and property. 

Seafarers at sea work in tough environmental conditions which often require good amount of physical strength. The food for seafarer thus needs to be of the best quality with all the necessary ingredients required to support a healthy body and mind. Food spoilage is when there is a loss of quality or nutritional value of the food that is often linked to the food deteriorating in taste, smell, flavour or appearance.  Most  of spoilage losses are the result of undetected loss of refrigeration or storage temperatures for the ship's provision, especially when personnel are not present.  

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) 

Definitive assessment of a seafarer's disability

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.

For the courts and labor tribunals, determining whether a seafarer's fitness to work despite suffering an alleged partial injury generally requires resort to the assessment and certification issued within the 120/240-day period by the company-designated physician. Through such certification, a seafarer's fitness to resume work or the degree of disability can be known, unless challenged by the seafarer through a second opinion secured by virtue of his right under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract. Such certification must be a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability.  

A final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. Otherwise, the corresponding disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered. (REYNALDO SUNIT,  vs. OSM MARITIME SERVICES, INC.  February 27, 2017G.R. No. 223035

Jurisprudence is replete with cases bearing similar pronouncements.

In Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete (G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011), the Court concluded that the company-designated doctor's certification issued within the prescribed periods must be a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or disability:

As stated in Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol, (G.R. No. 186289 June 29, 2010)

the company-designated doctor must declare the seafarer  fit to work or assess the degree of his permanent disability. Without which, the characterization of a seafarer's condition as permanent and total will ensue because the ability to return to one's accustomed work before the applicable periods elapse cannot be shown.

In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar,  (G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 795), the Supreme Court  underscored  that the assessment of the company-designated physician of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days must be definite, viz: "Moreover, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days. That should he fail to do so and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the seafarer shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. (emphasis supplied)"

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) 

Incompetence and Inefficiency as grounds for dismissal

It is settled that 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.

As a general concept, poor performance is tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. An unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Poor or unsatisfactory performance of an employee does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties 

To ascribe gross neglect, there must be lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the total absence of care in the performance of duties. In other words, there is gross neglect when the employee exhibits thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting effort to avoid them. On the other hand, habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to perform duties in a single or isolated instance.  

 

The dismissal report against the seafarer did not describe the specific acts that would establish his alleged poor performance, or his want of even slight care in the performance of his official tasks as chief cook for a certain period of time; hence, even assuming that seafarer’s performance was unsatisfactory, the company failed to show that his poor performance amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties.  (INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., v. RANULFO CAMPOREDONDO, G.R. No. 199931, September 07, 2015)

 Accordingly, the following factors should be considered in relation to  incompetence:

(1) the workload of the seafarer  should be consistent with the position agreed upon in the labor contract or with the workload of similar other seafarers; 

(2) the reasons an seafarer  is identified as incompetent should be based on his personal performance, rather than objective factors beyond his control;

 (3) methods for assessing competence must be lawful; 

(4) whether the seafarer  is deemed competent or not should be measured against specific standards, and cannot be judged by qualifications or rank; 

(5) when declaring a seafarer to be incompetent, corresponding evidence should be obtained in addition to legal and applicable standards.

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.