ASG Law

タグ: Seafarer’s Rights

  • Seafarer’s Rights: Compensability of Injuries Arising from Assault Onboard

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies that a seafarer’s injury sustained during employment is compensable, even if the injury results from an assault by a co-worker, as long as the injury is work-related. The ruling emphasizes that employers have a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment. This is a victory for seafarers who may face challenging conditions and interpersonal conflicts while at sea.

    Seafarer Assaulted: Is it Still a Work-Related Injury?

    The case of George M. Toquero v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc. centers on the question of whether an injury sustained by a seafarer during an assault by a fellow crew member is compensable as a work-related injury. Toquero, a fitter on a vessel, was assaulted by an oiler named Jamesy Fong, resulting in serious head injuries. The core legal issue is whether such an injury, stemming from an intentional act of violence, can be considered work-related and thus warrant disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. The labor tribunals and Court of Appeals initially ruled against Toquero, arguing that the injury, being a result of a criminal act, was not an ‘accident’ and therefore not compensable. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that as long as the injury is work-related and occurred during the term of employment, it is compensable, regardless of whether it was caused by an accident or intentional act of violence. This decision underscores the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment for seafarers and protects their right to compensation for injuries sustained while performing their duties.

    At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision is the interpretation of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which outlines the terms and conditions governing the employment of Filipino seafarers. The contract specifies that for a disability to be compensable, the injury or illness must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment. The Court emphasized that ‘work-related injury’ means an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. This requires establishing a causal connection between the work and the injury sustained.

    The Court highlighted that the key is whether there is a reasonable linkage between the injury suffered by the seafarer and their work. This does not necessarily mean that the nature of employment must be the sole cause of the disability. It is sufficient if the work contributed to the establishment or aggravation of any pre-existing condition the seafarer might have had. The Supreme Court pointed to a crucial breach of duty by the respondents: their failure to take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew, as mandated by the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Specifically, the master of the vessel instructed Toquero and his assailant to work together despite knowing their previous altercation. This failure to ensure a safe working environment directly contributed to the injury suffered by Toquero.

    Section 1(A)(4) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract: Respondents must ‘take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew[.]’

    Building on this principle, the Court addressed the argument that the injury was not compensable because it was caused by an intentional act, not an accident. The Court clarified that the POEA Standard Employment Contract disqualifies claims caused by the willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties done by the claimant, not by the assailant. It would be unjust to preclude a seafarer’s disability claim due to the assailant’s actions. The Court underscored the employer’s responsibility to ensure the discipline of its workers and bear the costs of harm should they fail to take adequate precautions. In essence, the Supreme Court emphasized that the benefits of allocative efficiency between the employer and the seafarer can be better understood by assessing the occupational hazards, in accordance with the POEA regulations and the seafarer’s employment contract. This shift in liability encourages employers to prioritize safety and discipline among their crew.

    The Court also addressed the issue of the medical assessment of Toquero’s injury. While referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure when there is disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician, this rule is not absolute. The Court acknowledged that the company-designated physician’s findings may be biased towards the employer. In this case, the Court found the company-designated physician’s assessment deficient because they failed to conduct all the recommended tests to fully evaluate Toquero’s condition. Despite recommending a complete neurologic examination, the physician only relied on an electroencephalography. This incomplete assessment led the Court to give greater weight to the findings of Toquero’s chosen physicians, who declared him permanently unfit to work. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also favored Toquero’s submitted Collective Bargaining Agreement over the respondents’ proposed contract, highlighting the policy of interpreting any contract clauses in favor of labor when disputes arise. Ultimately, the Court ruled that Toquero was entitled to a total and permanent disability allowance of US$250,000.00, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an injury sustained by a seafarer during an assault by a fellow crew member is compensable as a work-related injury under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
    What did the lower courts initially decide? The labor tribunals and Court of Appeals initially ruled against the seafarer, arguing that the injury, being a result of a criminal act, was not an ‘accident’ and therefore not compensable.
    How did the Supreme Court rule on this issue? The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that as long as the injury is work-related and occurred during the term of employment, it is compensable, regardless of whether it was caused by an accident or intentional act of violence.
    What is the POEA Standard Employment Contract? The POEA Standard Employment Contract outlines the terms and conditions governing the employment of Filipino seafarers, including provisions for disability benefits in case of work-related injuries or illnesses.
    What does ‘work-related injury’ mean under the POEA contract? A ‘work-related injury’ means an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, requiring a causal connection between the work and the injury sustained.
    What responsibility do employers have to prevent injuries? Employers must take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew, as mandated by the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and failure to ensure a safe working environment can result in liability.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician assesses the seafarer’s injury or illness, but the assessment must be complete and unbiased, and if the seafarer disagrees, a third doctor may be consulted for a final and binding decision.
    What benefits was the seafarer entitled to in this case? The seafarer was entitled to a total and permanent disability allowance of US$250,000.00, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    In conclusion, this Supreme Court decision offers significant protection to seafarers by affirming the compensability of work-related injuries, even those resulting from assaults by fellow crew members. This ruling reinforces the employer’s duty to ensure a safe working environment and underscores the importance of thorough and unbiased medical assessments. It’s always best to seek legal guidance when facing complex circumstances surrounding a seafarer’s work related claims.

    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: GEORGE M. TOQUERO v. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., G.R. No. 213482, June 26, 2019

  • Seafarer’s Rights: Employer’s Duty to Provide Timely Medical Examination Prevails Over Strict Reporting Rules

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies that a seafarer’s right to claim compensation and benefits cannot be forfeited due to the absence of a post-employment medical examination if the employer is at fault for failing to provide it. Even though the seafarer filed his claim prematurely for total and permanent disability, his entitlement to sickness allowance and partial disability benefits was recognized. The Court emphasized that employers must comply with their obligations under the POEA-SEC and that any doubts should be resolved in favor of the seafarer.

    海上の不運：船員の早期医療検査を怠った雇用主は、報告義務違反を主張できるのか？

    Mark Anthony Saso, a fisherman, suffered a thigh fracture while working on a vessel in Taiwan. Upon repatriation, he claimed disability benefits from his employer, 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of Saso, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, citing Saso’s failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within three days of his arrival. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC’s decision.

    The Supreme Court, however, partially reversed the CA’s ruling. While Saso’s claim for total and permanent disability was premature, the Court emphasized that the employer had a duty to provide a timely post-employment medical examination. Saso had reported to 88 Aces within three days of his repatriation, but the company allegedly told him to shoulder his medical expenses, subject to reimbursement. This was supported by an acknowledgement receipt for medical expenses incurred on that same day. The Court noted that respondents never categorically denied Saso’s allegation that they had initially told him to shoulder his medical expenses himself. Because the company failed to provide a medical examination the court determined it could not penalize the employee for not meeting the strict reporting requirments.

    The POEA-SEC outlines the compensation and benefits for injury or illness. Section 20(B) states that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of their return. Failure to comply results in forfeiture of the right to claim benefits.

    Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

    x x x x

    B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

    The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

    x x x x

    For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply within the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in Ms forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

    Despite the premature filing for permanent disability, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the employer had failed to adhere to its responsibilities by not providing an immediate examination after Saso’s arrival. This failure was deemed significant because it placed Saso in a disadvantageous position, hindering his ability to substantiate his claim promptly. The employer’s obligation to provide the initial medical assessment could not be shifted onto the employee. While respondents argued that Saso was summoned several times for a medical examination, the court found their evidence lacking.

    It also emerged during court proceedings that, despite his injury, Saso diligently attempted to comply with requirements by seeking his own medical assessment shortly after his return. The Court observed that respondents could have easily proved their claimed willingness to comply with their part of the bargain by showing that they issued Saso a referral for post-employment examination. However, no such referral was issued to him.

    Based on the case Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. a seafarer is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work for a period not to exceed 120 days. This may be extended up to 240 days if medical attention is still required. The seafarer receives basic wages during this period. Because Saso filed his complaint only 105 days from his repatriation date he was not entitled to permanent disability benefits.

    Saso was still entitled to sickness allowance and partial disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. His claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, however, was disallowed for lack of supporting receipts. The company-designated physician assessed Saso with Impediment Grade 13, which corresponds to a certain level of partial disability. The court thus awarded Saso partial disability benefits and sickness allowance for the period following the initial three months after his arrival.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits should be denied due to failure to comply with the mandatory 3-day reporting requirement for post-employment medical examination when the employer failed to provide such examination.
    What is the 3-day reporting requirement? The 3-day reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon their return, or risk forfeiting their right to claim benefits.
    What did the Supreme Court decide about this requirement? The Supreme Court decided that the 3-day reporting requirement cannot be strictly enforced if the employer failed to provide the seafarer with a timely post-employment medical examination, clarifying that the employer’s duty takes precedence.
    Was the seafarer awarded disability benefits in this case? While the seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits was deemed premature because it was filed before the 120-day period, the Court awarded him sickness allowance and partial disability benefits based on the assessment of the company-designated physician.
    What is an Impediment Grade and how does it affect disability benefits? An Impediment Grade is an assessment made by the company-designated physician regarding the degree of a seafarer’s disability, and it is used to determine the amount of partial disability benefits to be paid according to the POEA-SEC schedule.
    What is the responsibility of the employer regarding medical examinations? The employer has the responsibility to provide, at its cost, the medical treatment for the seafarer’s work-related injury or illness until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of disability is established by the company-designated physician.
    What happens if the company-designated physician doesn’t provide an assessment? If the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within the initial 120-day period (extendable to 240 days), the seafarer may have grounds to claim total and permanent disability benefits, especially if the seafarer remains unable to work.
    Can a seafarer consult their own doctor? Yes, a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of their own doctor, especially if they disagree with the assessment of the company-designated physician, but this is generally done after the company doctor has already issued an opinion.
    What is a sickness allowance? A sickness allowance is a benefit equivalent to the seafarer’s basic wage, which is paid while the seafarer is undergoing medical treatment for a work-related injury or illness, until they are declared fit to work or their permanent disability is assessed.

    This case highlights the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations under the POEA-SEC to ensure seafarers receive proper medical attention and compensation for work-related injuries. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that strict compliance with procedural requirements should not be used to prejudice the rights of seafarers who have suffered injuries while on duty.

    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: Mark Anthony Saso v. 88 Aces Maritime Service, Inc., G.R. No. 211638, October 07, 2015