Background
First appeal
Second appeal and decision
Comment
A seaman who was employed as a second assistant engineer complained of chest pains about four months after embarkation. He was referred to a hospital in Mexico, where he was diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and high blood pressure. He was then repatriated and placed under the care of the company-designated doctor, who diagnosed his illness as hypertension. The seaman received treatment from October 9 2001 to April 25 2002 (199 days), and was eventually declared fit to work. The seaman questioned the findings of the company-designated doctor and obtained a second opinion from his personal doctor. The latter diagnosed him with ischemic heart disease, hypertensive cardiovascular disease and congestive heart failure, and declared him unfit to work in any capacity. On this basis, the seaman filed a claim for:
- full disability benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA);
- sick pay;
- damages; and
- attorney's fees.
The labour arbiter denied the seaman's claim for disability benefits, as the CBA provision applied only to disabilities arising from an accident. Moreover, the seaman was not entitled to disability benefits under the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC), because he had been declared fit to work by the company-designated doctor, whose findings were deemed more credible than those of the seaman's personal doctor. However, an award of sick pay for Ps21,581.39 was issued, plus one month's wages of $809 as a penalty for failure to re-deploy the seaman. On appeal, the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the labour arbiter's decision and overturned:
- the award of sick pay, as this had already been paid; and
- the penalty of one month's wages, as the company had no obligation to re-deploy the seaman since he was a contractual employee.
The seaman challenged the decision before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition by affirming the reasoning of the NLRC (ie, that he was not entitled to disability benefits because he had been declared fit to work by the company-designated doctor). The appeal court held that the findings of the company-designated doctor were more credible, as they were made over a six-month treatment period, as compared to the one-day consultation undertaken by the seaman's personal doctor.
The seaman appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court. He argued that since his disability lasted for over 120 days, he should be considered totally and permanently disabled. The Supreme Court upheld his appeal and awarded him full disability benefits of $60,000, plus attorney's fees of $6,000. The Supreme Court ruled that since the company-designated doctor had issued a certification of fitness after 199 days, the seaman was thus considered permanently and totally disabled. It did not matter that he had been declared fit to work after 120 days, but only that his disability had lasted over 120 days – making it total and permanent in character and entitling him to full disability benefits under the POEA SEC.(1)
While this case was initially decided in favour of the vessel interests, the First Division of the Supreme Court – which has consistently upheld the 120-day rule – reversed.
The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that a seafarer who is unable to work for more than 120 days should be considered totally and permanently disabled. However, in some cases this was modified by extending the 120-day rule to 240 days, which is considered more acceptable. For example, in two Third Division decisions the 120-day rule was extended to 240 days. It is therefore important that all three divisions of the court uniformly decide whether the 120-day rule or 240-day rule applies when determining a seafarer's total and permanent disability.
It is expected that a motion for reconsideration will be filed to the Supreme Court en banc, so that the issue can finally be settled.
For further information on this topic please contact Ruben T Del Rosario at Del Rosario & Del Rosario law Offices by telephone (+63 2 810 1791), fax (+63 2 817 1740) or email ([email protected]).
Endnotes
(1) Carmelito Valenzona v Fair Shipping Corporation and/or Sejin Lines Company Limited, GR 176884; First Division, October 19 2011, Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo, Ponente.