Laws & Jurisprudence
DISABILITY BENEFIT OF SEAFARERS
2:49 PM
Probability,
not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation
proceedings. And probability must be reasonable; hence it should, at
least, be anchored on credible information. Moreover, a mere possibility
will not suffice; a claim will fail if there is only a possibility that the employment
caused the disease. (ARNALDO G.
GABUNAS, SR.v. SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., MR. VICENTE BRILLANTES AND IUM SHIP
MANAGEMENT, G.R. No. 188637,
15 December 2010)
That the exact and definite cause of
petitioner’s illness is unknown cannot be used to justify grant of disability
benefits, absent proof that there is any reasonable connection between work
actually performed by petitioner and his illness. (JERRY
M. FRANCISCO v. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. and/or CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, and
FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINES, LTD, G.R.
No. 190545, 22 November 2010)
Respondent was
thus required to undergo post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three working days from arrival. He failed
to comply with the requirement, however, without explanation or justification
therefor. Hence, he forfeited his right to claim disability benefits. (PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., GLOBAL NAVIGATION, LTD. v. SILVINO A. NAZAM, G.R. No. 190804, 11 October
2010)
In addition,
the Supreme Court (SC) explained that specifically with respect to mental
diseases, for the same to be compensable, the POEA-SEC requires that it must be
due to traumatic injury to the head which did not occur in this case. (PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., GLOBAL NAVIGATION, LTD. v. SILVINO A. NAZAM, G.R. No. 190804, 11 October
2010)
In the absence
of substantial evidence, working conditions cannot be accepted to have caused
or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, in this case, brief
psychotic disorder. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The
evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to
prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely
apparent. (EDGARDO M. PANGANIBAN v. TARA
TRADING SHIPMANAGEMENT INC. AND SHINLINE SDN BHD, G.R. No. 187032, 18 October
2010)
It appears premature at this time to
consider petitioner’s disability as permanent and total because the severity of
his ailment has not been established with finality to render him already
incapable of performing the work of a seafarer. In fact, the medical expert
termed his condition as brief psychotic
disorder. The SC also takes note, as the CA correctly did, that petitioner
did not finish his treatment with the company-designated physician, hence,
there is no final evaluation yet on
petitioner. (EDGARDO M. PANGANIBAN v. TARA
TRADING SHIPMANAGEMENT INC. AND SHINLINE SDN BHD, G.R. No. 187032, 18 October
2010)
The snap
on the back of Illescas was not an accident, but an injury sustained by
Illescas from carrying the heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, which injury
resulted in his disability. The injury cannot be said to be the result of an
accident, that is, an unlooked for mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event,
because the injury resulted from the performance of a duty. (NFD
INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, INC./BARBER SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD.v. ESMERALDO C.
ILLESCAS, G.R. No. 183054, 29 September
2010)
The Supreme
Court (SC) sustained the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in granting total and
permanent disability benefits in favor of Villamater, as it was sufficiently
shown that his having contracted colon cancer was, at the very least,
aggravated by his working conditions, taking into consideration his
dietary provisions on board, his age, and his job as Chief Engineer, who was
primarily in charge of the technical and mechanical operations of the vessels
to ensure voyage safety. (LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. and WORLD MARINE
PANAMA, S.A. v. CATALINO U.
VILLAMATER, et al., G.R. No.
179169, 3 March 2010)
Jurisprudence
provides that to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease,
reasonable proof of work-connection and not direct causal relation is required.
Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in
compensation proceedings. (LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. and WORLD MARINE
PANAMA, S.A. v. CATALINO U.
VILLAMATER, et al., G.R. No.
179169, 3 March 2010)
It is mandatory for a claimant to be
examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his
repatriation. The unexplained omission of this requirement will bar
the filing of a claim for disability benefits. (ALEX C. COOTAUCO v. MMS PHIL. MARITIME SERVICES,
INC., MS. MARY C. MAQUILAN AND/OR MMS CO. LTD., G.R. No. 184722, 15 March 2010)
Permanent disability is inability of a
worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not
he loses the use of any part of his body. Total disability, on the other hand,
means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of
similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind
of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the
injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting
in the impairment of one’s earning capacity. (RIZALDY M. QUITORIANO v. JEBSENS MARITIME, INC./ MA.
THERESA GUTAY and/or ATLE JEBSENS MANAGEMENT A/S, G.R. No. 179868, 21 January 2010)
Since
cholecystolithiasis or gallstone has been excluded as a compensable illness
under the applicable standard contract for Filipino seafarers that binds both
respondent Abalos and the vessel’s foreign owner, it was an error for the CA to
treat Abalos’ illness as "work-related" and, therefore, compensable.
The standard contract precisely did not consider gallstone as compensable
illness because the parties agreed, presumably based on medical science, that
such affliction is not caused by working on board ocean-going vessels. Nor has
respondent Abalos proved by some evidence that the nature of his work on board
a ship aggravated his illness. (BANDILA SHIPPING, INC., MR. REGINALDO A.
OBEN, BANDILA SHIPPING, INC. and FUYOH SHIPPING, INC., v. MARCOS C. ABALOS, G.R. No. 177100, 22
February 2010)
Considering
the circumstances prevailing in the instant case, the SC ruled that it did not
matter that the company-designated physician assessed petitioner as fit to
work. It is undisputed that from the time petitioner was repatriated, he was
unable to work for more than 120 days as he was only certified fit to work 199
days thereafter. Consequently, petitioner's disability is considered permanent
and total. In fact, from his repatriation until the filing of his petition
before the SC, or for more than five years, petitioner claims that he was
unable to resume his job as a seaman which thus strongly indicates that
his disability is permanent and total. (CARMELITO N. VALENZONA v. FAIR SHIPPING CORPORATION and/or SEJIN LINES
COMPANY LIMITED, G.R. No. 176884, 19 October 2011)
For
disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, two
elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2)
the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the
seafarer’s employment contract. In other words, to be entitled to compensation
and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the
seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially
disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection
between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been
contracted. (GILBERT QUIZORA v. DENHOLM
CREW MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC., G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011)
Lastly,
there is also no proof that petitioner’s varicose veins caused him to suffer
total and permanent disability. The Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) he underwent cannot serve as
enough basis to justify a finding of a total and permanent disability because
of its non-exploratory nature. The fact that respondent passed the company’s
PEME is of no moment. We have ruled that in the past the PEME is not
exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and
thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. (GILBERT QUIZORA v. DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC.,
G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011)
Total disability, on the other hand,
means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of
similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind
of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do. It does not
mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury
which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the
impairment of one's earning capacity. (FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, CAPTAIN
VICTORIO S. MIGALLOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISE CORPORATION v. HANZIEL O. ROSETE, G.R. No. 192686, November
23, 2011)
A total disability does not require that
the employee be absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is
that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual work and
earn therefrom (Austria v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 146636, Aug. 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 216, 221). On the
other hand, a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously
for more than 120 days. (FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, CAPTAIN
VICTORIO S. MIGALLOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISE CORPORATION v. HANZIEL O. ROSETE, G.R. No. 192686, November
23, 2011)
A temporary total disability only
becomes permanent when the company-designated physician, within the 240 day
period, declares it to be so, or when after the lapse of the same, he fails to
make such declaration. (ALEN H. SANTIAGO v. PACBASIN SHIPMANAGEMENT,
INC. and/or MAJESTIC CARRIERS, INC., G.R. No. 194677, 18 April 2012)
For purposes
of determining the seafarer’s degree of disability, it is the
company-designated physician who must proclaim that he sustained a permanent
disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during
the term of his employment. (DANIEL M. ISON, v. CREWSERVE, INC., et al., G.R. No. 173951, 16
April 2012)
Permanent
disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120
days, regardless of whether or not he losses the use of any part of his body. (MAGSAYSAY
MARITIME CORPORATION and/or WASTFEL-LARSEN MANAGEMENT A/S+
vs. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA, G.R. No. 177578,
January 25, 2012)
The 120-day period
is when the seafarer is considered to be totally yet temporarily disabled,
thus, entitling him to sickness wages. This is also the period given to the
employer to determine whether the seafarer is fit for sea duty or permanently
disabled and the degree of such disability. (C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. v.
JOEL D. TAOK, G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012)
When
the company-designated physician made a declaration that Tomacruz was already
fit to work, 249 days had already lapsed from the time he was repatriated. As
such, his temporary total disability should be deemed total and permanent,
pursuant to Article 192 (c)(1) of the Labor Code and its implementing rule. (PHILASIA
SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION, et al. vs. ANDRES G. TOMACRUZ, G.R. No. 181180, 15
August 2012)
A
seafarer, to be entitled to disability benefits, must prove that the injury was
suffered during the term of the employment, and must submit himself to the
company-designated physician for evaluation within three days from his repatriation.
(WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. VS. ERNESTO C. TANAWAN, G.R. No. 160444, August 29, 2012)
It is evident that the maximum 240-day medical treatment period expired
in this case without a declaration of Medel’s fitness to work or the existence
of his permanent disability determined. Accordingly, Medel’s temporary total
disability should be deemed permanent and thus, he is entitled to permanent
total disability benefits. (FAIR SHIPPING CORP., and/or KOHYU MARINE
CO., LTD. v. JOSELITO T. MEDEL, G.R.
No. 177907, 29 August 2012)
Permanent
total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same
kind of work, or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed
to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment
could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. (PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC. et
al. v. BENJAMIN D. PENALES,
G.R. No. 162809, 5 September 2012)
It is not necessary that the nature of the
employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the
seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the
disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to
conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the
very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had. (ESSIE V.
DAVID, represented by his wife, MA. THERESA S. DAVID, and children, KATHERINE
and KRISTINA DAVID v. OSG SHIP MANAGEMENT MANILA, INC., and/or MICHAELMAR
SHIPPING SERVICES, G.R. No. 197205, 26 September 2012)
Jurisprudence
is replete with pronouncements that it is the company-designated physician who
is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total
or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's
employment. It is his findings and evaluations which should form the basis of
the seafarer's disability claim. His assessment, however, is not automatically
final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts,
as its inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The
seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative
to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of
disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the
seafarer's doctor of choice, the employer and the seaman may agree jointly to
refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on
them. (RUBEN D. ANDRADA v. AGEMAR MANNING AGENCY, INC., and/or SONNET SHIPPING
LTD./MALTA, G.R. No. 194758, 24 October 2012)
A seafarer’s inability to resume his
work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered an injury
and/or illness is not a magic wand that automatically warrants the grant of
total and permanent disability benefits in his favor. The rule is that a
temporary total disability only becomes permanent when the company-designated
physician, within the 240-day period, declares it to be so, or when after the
lapse of the same, he fails to make such declaration. (BENJAMIN C. MILLAN vs. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., et al., G.R.
No. 195168, 12 November 2012)
Illnesses
need not be shown to be work-related to be compensable under the 1996 POEA-SEC,
which covers all injuries or illnesses occurring in the lifetime of the
employment contract. It is enough that the seafarer proves that his or her
injury or illness was acquired during the term of employment to support a claim
for disability benefits. (CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. et al. v.
SALVADOR T. SERNA, G.R. No. 172086, 3
December 2012)
The
obligation imposed by the mandatory reporting requirement under the 1996
POEA-SEC is not solely on the seafarer. It requires the employer to likewise
act on the report, and in this sense partakes of the nature of a reciprocal
obligation. While the mandatory reporting requirement obliges the seafarer to be present for the post-employment medical
examination, which must be conducted within three (3) working days upon the
seafarer’s return, it also poses the employer the implied obligation to conduct
a meaningful and timely examination of the seafarer. (CAREER PHILIPPINES
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. et al. v. SALVADOR T. SERNA, G.R. No. 172086, 3 December 2012)
It would
be fairly easy for a physician to determine whether the injury or ailment is
work-related within three-days from repatriation, to ignore the requirement
would set a precedent with negative repercussions which would open the
floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits. (LOADSTAR
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. VS. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE ENRIQUE C. CALAWIGAN
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL SPOUSE MARITESS C. CALAWIGAN, G.R. No. 187337, 5 December 2012)
For an
occupational disease and the resulting disability to be compensable, all of the
following conditions must be satisfied under the POEA-SEC: (1) the seafarer’s
work must involve the risks described in the contract; (2) the disease was
contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; (3)
the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other
factors necessary to contract it; and (4) there was no notorious negligence on
the part of the seafarer. (LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. VS. THE
HEIRS OF THE LATE ENRIQUE C. CALAWIGAN REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL SPOUSE MARITESS
C. CALAWIGAN, G.R. No. 187337, 5
December 2012)
While the
Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in
construing the POEA-SEC, it cannot allow claims for compensation based on
conjectures and probabilities. When there is no evidence on record to permit
compensability, the Court has no choice but to deny the claim, lest injustice
is caused to the employer. (CREW AND SHIP MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL INC. and
SALENA INC. v. JINA T. SORIA,
G.R. No. 175491, 10 December 2012)
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. (KESTREL SHIPPING CO., INC./ CAPT. AMADOR P. SERVILLON and ATLANTIC
MANNING LTD. v. FRANCISCO D.
MUNAR, G.R. No. 198501, 30
January 2013)
A seafarer’s compliance with the under
Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC presupposes that the company-designated
physician came up with an assessment as to his fitness or unfitness to work
before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods. Alternatively put,
absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had
nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his
disability as total and permanent. (KESTREL SHIPPING CO., INC./ CAPT. AMADOR P.
SERVILLON and ATLANTIC MANNING LTD. v. FRANCISCO D.
MUNAR, G.R. No. 198501, 30
January 2013)
While it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the
seaman suffered a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive
the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion. Accordingly, if serious
doubt exists on the company-designated physician's declaration of the nature of
a seaman's injury and its corresponding impediment grade, resort to prognosis
of other competent medical professionals should be made. (RAMON G. NAZARENO
v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC., AND ELITE SHIPPING A/S, G.R.
No. 168703, 26 February 2013)
0 comments