Seafarers Are Contractual Employees, Not Entitled to 13th Month Pay Under PD 851

TLDR: This case clarifies that seafarers are contractual employees, not regular employees, and are not entitled to 13th month pay under Presidential Decree No. 851. Their employment is governed by fixed-term contracts approved by the POEA, and benefits are limited to what is stipulated in these contracts. Disability benefits are determined by the contract and the specific circumstances of the illness or injury.

G.R. NO. 148130, June 16, 2006

Introduction

Imagine a life at sea, months away from home, navigating treacherous waters. Seafarers are the backbone of global trade, yet their employment status and rights are often misunderstood. This case, Petroleum Shipping Limited vs. National Labor Relations Commission, delves into the crucial question of whether seafarers are regular or contractual employees, and what benefits they are entitled to. This distinction has significant implications for seafarers’ rights, compensation, and job security.

Florello W. Tanchico, a Chief Engineer, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking backwages, separation pay, disability, and medical benefits after being deemed unfit for deployment due to a medical condition. The core legal question revolves around whether Tanchico, as a seafarer, should be considered a regular employee entitled to broader benefits, or a contractual employee with rights limited to his employment contract.

Legal Context: Defining Seafarer Employment

The employment of seafarers is unique and governed by specific laws and regulations. Understanding the difference between regular and contractual employment is essential.

Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular employment as work that is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. However, this general rule has exceptions, particularly for overseas workers like seafarers.

The key legal principles at play here include:

• Contractual Employment: Seafarers typically have fixed-term contracts, usually not exceeding 12 months, as stipulated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
• Presidential Decree No. 851 (PD 851): This decree mandates the payment of 13th-month pay to employees, but its applicability to seafarers is a point of contention.
• POEA Rules: The POEA’s Standard Employment Contract governs the terms and conditions of employment for Filipino seafarers.

Article 280 of the Labor Code states:

“An employee is deemed to be regular where he has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer… The employment of employees under a written contract for a definite period or for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee shall not preclude the characterization of said employees as regular employees.”

Previous Supreme Court cases, such as Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora and Millares v. NLRC, have established that seafarers are generally considered contractual employees due to the fixed-term nature of their contracts.

Case Breakdown: Tanchico’s Claim

The case unfolded as follows:

1. Hiring and Deployment: Florello Tanchico was hired as a First Assistant Engineer in 1978 and later became Chief Engineer.
2. Medical Examination: In 1992, a pre-deployment medical examination revealed Tanchico had heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes.
3. Non-Deployment and Complaint: Despite a subsequent negative stress test, Esso did not redeploy him and offered benefits under the Career Employment Incentive Plan. Tanchico then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
4. Labor Arbiter’s Decision: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint.
5. NLRC Resolution: The NLRC initially affirmed the dismissal but later reconsidered, awarding disability benefits and 13th-month pay.
6. Court of Appeals Decision: The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s resolution, ruling that Tanchico was a regular employee entitled to benefits.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals, stating:

“[I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires.”

The Court also noted:

“PD 851 contemplates the situation of land-based workers, and not of seafarers who generally earn more than domestic land-based workers.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that Tanchico’s employment was governed by his Contract of Enlistment, approved by the POEA, which did not provide for 13th-month pay.

Practical Implications for Seafarers and Employers

This ruling reinforces the contractual nature of seafarer employment, limiting their benefits to what is explicitly stated in their contracts. This has several practical implications:

• For Seafarers: It’s crucial to understand the terms of your employment contract, including provisions for disability benefits, vacation compensation, and other entitlements.
• For Employers: Ensure that employment contracts comply with POEA regulations and clearly define the scope of benefits and compensation.

Key Lessons

• Seafarers are generally considered contractual employees, not regular employees.
• PD 851, mandating 13th-month pay, does not automatically apply to seafarers.
• Benefits are primarily governed by the employment contract approved by the POEA.
• Disability benefits are determined by the contract and the circumstances of the illness or injury.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Are seafarers entitled to separation pay if their contract is not renewed?

A: Generally, no. Since seafarers are contractual employees, their employment ends upon the expiration of their contract, and they are not typically entitled to separation pay unless it’s specifically provided in their contract or mandated by law under specific circumstances like illegal dismissal.

Q: What happens if a seafarer becomes ill or injured during their employment?

A: The company is obligated to provide medical treatment and disability benefits as outlined in the employment contract and POEA regulations. The seafarer is entitled to wages and medical care until declared fit or the degree of permanent disability is assessed, typically for a maximum period.

Q: Can a seafarer claim permanent disability benefits even if their illness was pre-existing?

A: It depends. If the pre-existing condition was aggravated by the working conditions during the employment, the seafarer may be entitled to disability benefits. However, the burden of proof lies with the seafarer to demonstrate the aggravation.

Q: What should a seafarer do if they believe their employer is not fulfilling their contractual obligations?

A: The seafarer should first attempt to resolve the issue through negotiation with the employer. If that fails, they can file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for adjudication.

Q: Are vacation days considered part of the employment period?

A: If the seafarer receives compensation during their vacation, the contract remains in force during the vacation period. The contract does not terminate on the day they return to Manila but includes the compensated vacation time.

ASG Law specializes in maritime law and labor law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.