This Supreme Court case clarifies the rights of seafarers regarding disability benefits, especially when their medical treatment extends beyond the initial 120-day period. The ruling emphasizes that if a seafarer’s injury or illness prevents them from returning to work for more than 240 days, they are entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, regardless of the company-designated physician’s assessment of a partial disability. This decision protects seafarers by ensuring they receive adequate compensation when their injuries prevent them from resuming their seafaring duties.

When Does a Seafarer’s Injury Qualify as Total and Permanent Disability?

This case centers around Arnel G. Dela Torre, a seaman who injured his back during a rescue boat drill. After repatriation and medical treatment, the company-designated physician assessed him with a Grade 11 disability (partial). However, his treatment and inability to work as a seafarer continued for over 240 days. The legal question is whether Dela Torre should receive benefits for a partial disability (as assessed by the company doctor) or for total and permanent disability, given the extended period he was unable to work. The case hinges on interpreting the interplay between the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC), the Labor Code, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in determining the extent of a seafarer’s disability benefits.

The core legal principle at play here is the interpretation of **permanent total disability** in the context of seafarer employment contracts. The Labor Code provides that a temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days is deemed total and permanent, with a possible extension up to 240 days under certain circumstances. Similarly, the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) echoes this, stating that a disability is total and permanent if the employee cannot perform any gainful occupation for over 120 days, with exceptions provided under Rule X. The court grapples with how these general provisions apply when a company-designated physician assesses a seafarer with a partial disability within the 240-day period, but the seafarer remains unable to work beyond that timeframe.

The petitioners (Sealanes Marine Services, Inc.) argued that the respondent (Dela Torre) should only receive benefits based on the Grade 11 disability assessment made by their company-designated physician, citing the POEA-SEC and Dutch CBA which gives this doctor primary authority. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting the importance of considering the actual impact of the injury on the seafarer’s ability to work. Even though the company doctor gave a disability grading, this did not diminish the applicability of the Labor Code when more than 240 days passed with the worker unable to work. The Court emphasized that the right to disability benefits isn’t solely determined by the company’s assessment but also by law, contract, and medical findings.

The court found that Dela Torre’s inability to return to his seafaring duties after more than 240 days of treatment and rehabilitation entitled him to total and permanent disability benefits under the Dutch CBA. This conclusion stems from a harmonious reading of the POEA-SEC, the Labor Code, and the AREC. As articulated in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, the 120-day period (extendable to 240) is for determining fitness to work; a total and temporary disability becomes permanent when no declaration of fitness or permanent disability is made within those periods, and the seafarer remains unable to resume regular duties. The company assessment was deemed incomplete as the treatments extended beyond the prescribed period.

Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement — (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.

Furthermore, the court referred to Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, reiterating that the ability to work again after a considerable period does not negate the existence of a total permanent disability if the seafarer was unable to perform their customary work for more than 120 days. This means the courts give importance to the present loss of work capacity, not any possible future capacity.

Finally, the Court addressed the joint and solidary liability of the manning agency (Sealanes), its foreign principal (Arklow Shipping Netherland), and the agency’s president (Dumatol), referencing Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended. This provision ensures that all parties involved in the seafarer’s employment share responsibility for any claims arising from the employer-employee relationship, reinforcing the protection afforded to Filipino seafarers working abroad. With no action for referral to a third doctor as listed in the POEA-SEC contract, the determination of the company doctor did not receive further consideration from the concerned parties.

よくある質問

このケースの主な争点は何でしたか？	船員の障害に対する補償の算定基準が争点でした。会社指定医の診断に基づくべきか、もしくは労働基準法や関連規則に基づいて、実際的な労働能力の喪失期間を考慮すべきかという点が問題となりました。
「完全かつ永久的な障害」とは具体的に何を意味しますか？	「完全かつ永久的な障害」とは、負傷や疾病により、従業員が120日を超える期間にわたり、実質的な労働を行うことができない状態を指します。治療期間が延長された場合は240日まで延長されます。
会社指定医の評価はどの程度重要ですか？	会社指定医の評価は重要ですが、労働基準法や関連契約も考慮されます。治療期間が240日を超えても労働不能な場合、会社指定医の評価とは異なる結論になることがあります。
POEA-SEC（フィリピン海外雇用庁標準雇用契約）とは何ですか？	POEA-SECとは、海外で働くフィリピン人船員を保護するための最低限の労働条件を定めた契約です。この契約には、障害補償に関する条項も含まれています。
この判決が船員に与える実際的な影響は何ですか？	この判決により、船員は会社指定医の評価だけでなく、実際の労働不能期間も考慮して障害補償を請求できる可能性が高まりました。240日を超えて労働不能な場合、完全かつ永久的な障害とみなされる可能性が高くなります。
もし会社指定医の評価に納得できない場合、どうすればよいですか？	POEA-SECには、船員が指名した医師と会社が共同で第三者の医師を選任し、その判断を最終的なものとする規定があります。
会社、船員、マンニング・エージェンシーそれぞれの責任は何ですか？	会社は適切な治療を提供し、正当な補償を支払う責任があります。船員は負傷後、定められた期間内に必要な手続きを行う責任があります。マンニング・エージェンシーは、会社と共に連帯して責任を負います。
本判決が言及する重要な法律はどれですか？	本判決では、労働基準法（Labor Code）、従業員補償に関する規則（AREC）、フィリピン海外雇用庁標準雇用契約（POEA-SEC）、移住労働者法（R.A. No. 8042）などが言及されています。

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of protecting the rights of seafarers and ensuring they receive just compensation when injured at sea. It serves as a reminder that disability assessments must be made in light of the seafarer’s actual ability to return to work, not solely based on a physician’s rating made during the initial stages of treatment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SEALANES MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. ARNEL G. DELA TORRE, G.R. No. 214132, February 18, 2015