Photo from Unsplash | Giu Vicente
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In Loue B. Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew MG., Inc., G.R. No. 242928, June 27, 2002, the Supreme Court held that the seafarers’ entitlement to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings, law, and contract. The POEA-SEC and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) bind the seafarers and their employers by contract.
In Nelson M. Celestino v. Belchem Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 246929, March 02, 2022, the Supreme Court explained that the employment of seafarers is governed by the contracts they enter into at the time of their engagement. So long as the contract is not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law as between the parties themselves. The Philippine Employment Administration (POEA) Rules and Regulations require that the Philippine Employment Administration (POEA) Standards Terms and Conditions (POEA-SEC) be integrated in every seafarer’s contract.
While in Loue B. Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew MG., Inc., G.R. No. 242928, June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the seafarers’ entitlement to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings, law, and contract. The POEA-SEC and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) bind the seafarers and their employers by contract. Moreover, Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides that the employer is liable when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the contract term. It also provides the reciprocal obligations of the seafarer and the employer to arrive at a definitive medical assessment of the seafarer’s injury or illness. In line with this, the seafarers are required to submit themselves to a post-employment medical examination upon arrival; otherwise, their disability claims are barred.
Additionally, the Supreme Court in the same case of Celestino v. Belchem Philippines, citing Orient Hope Agencies v. Jara, set out the guidelines to determine a seafarer’s disability, viz.:
- 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 them;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give their assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes total and permanent;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give their 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
- If the company-designated physician still fails to give [their] assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
Verily, if the company-designated physician still fails to give their assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification, as in this case.
Pursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC, an illness shall be considered as pre-existing if prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following conditions is present: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment given for such continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition but failed to disclose the same during the PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed during the PEME. More, to speak of fraudulent misrepresentation is not only to say that a person failed to disclose the truth but that he or she deliberately concealed it for a malicious purpose. To equate with fraudulent misrepresentation, the falsity must be coupled with intent to deceive and to profit from that deception. (PAL Maritime Corporation v. Darwin D. Dalisay, G.R. No. 218115, January 27, 2021)
Related Article:
- Seafarers’ Entitlement to Overtime Pay
- Death Benefits for Seafarers: Who is entitled to receive them?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.