DISABILITY BENEFIT OF SEAFARERS

Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings. And probability must be reasonable; h...

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)

You Might Also Like

0 comments