Declaration of seafarers' disability: A jurisprudential challenge to Philippine maritime industry

College

Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business

Department/Unit

Commercial Law

Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Source Title

9th Global Business Conference

First Page

70

Last Page

73

Publication Date

2-7-2015

Abstract

This study presents a survey of conflicting Supreme Court decisions as well as the challenges posed by them to the Philippine Maritime Industry on the issue of when an international Filipino seafarer becomes entitled to full permanent and total disability benefits. Flip-flopping interpretations on the matter has been frowned upon by foreign and local business investors in the industry. The legal principles of hierarchy of laws and stare decisis shall be utilized as research framework as business implications of the issue are presented.
In Crystal Shipping v. Natividad (G.R. 154798. 2005) the Supreme Court, introduced a new principle in Filipino seafarers' claims when it ruled that when a seafarer is unable to work for more than 120 days to to his disability or because he is under medical treatment, he is considered to be permanently and totally disabled and automatically entitled to full disability benefits under the provisions of the POEA Contract and the Collective Bargaining Agreement amounting to more than US60,000.00. Said principle was taken out from the provisions on employees compensation program found in the Labor Code and was applied to employment of overseas workers on ocean-going vessels. Said ruling in Crystal Shipping (2005) was upheld in the succeeding decisions of the Supreme Court in United Philippine Lines v. Beseril (G.R. 165934, 2006) and 4 other decided cases until 2008.
However, in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services (G.R. 172933, 2008), the Court modified the 120 days maximum period treatment of the seafarer to 240 days, and held that within the 240 day period, the seafarer may be declared fit or the degree of his disability established, beyond which the temporary total disability becomes permanent. Accordingly, the basis for this extension is found in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code.
Subsequently, in Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers (G.R. 183908, 2009) and 3 other decided cases until 2010, the Court reverted back to the 120-day maximum rule. After two months in 2010, the Court applied the 240-day maximum rule again in Magsaysay Maritime v. Cedol (G.R. 186180, 2010). Surprisingly, in three months time, the Court reverted anew to 120-days in Oriental Ship Management v. Bastol (G.R. 186289, 2010) which was also adhered to in 2 other decided cases until 2011. The Court emphasized that total disability does not require that the employee be completely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his or her usual work and earn from it. On the other hand, a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. But in the recent cases of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta (G.R. 177578, 2012) and Santiago v. Pacbasin Shipmanagement (G.R. 194677, 2012), the Court held that when the maximum 240-day medical treatment period expired, and no declaration was made that seafarer is fit to work nor permanent disability exists, the seafarer is entitled to full benefits for total and permanent disability.

html

Disciplines

Disability Studies | Jurisprudence

Keywords

Merchant mariners--Philippines; Disabled veterans--Philippines; Jurisprudence; Shipping--Philippines

Upload File

wf_no

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS