In Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc. v. San Jose, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of the 240-day period for assessing a seafarer’s disability. The Court ruled that if a company-designated physician fails to issue a final medical assessment within 240 days from the seafarer’s repatriation, the seafarer’s disability is automatically deemed total and permanent, entitling them to full disability benefits. This protects seafarers from prolonged uncertainty and ensures timely compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses suffered at sea.

Anchoring Justice: When a Seafarer’s Vision Impairs and the Clock Runs Out

Edmund R. San Jose, a seafarer working as a wiper on a vessel, experienced impaired vision in his left eye while at sea. Upon repatriation, he was diagnosed with retinal detachment. After undergoing multiple surgeries, the company-designated physician declared him “fit to work” – but only after 263 days from his repatriation. San Jose filed a claim for total permanent disability benefits, arguing that the physician’s assessment was issued beyond the allowable 240-day period. The central legal question revolved around the timeliness of the medical assessment and its impact on San Jose’s entitlement to disability compensation.

The case hinged on the interpretation and application of the 2000 POEA-SEC, which governs the employment of Filipino seafarers. This contract, along with the Labor Code and its implementing rules, establishes the framework for determining disability benefits. A key provision is the requirement for a company-designated physician to assess a seafarer’s condition within a specific timeframe. Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code defines permanent total disability as a temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days.

Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation further clarifies the period of entitlement to income benefits. Similarly, Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC stipulates that a seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance until declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability, but this period cannot exceed 120 days. These provisions collectively establish the 120/240-day rule, which is critical in determining a seafarer’s right to disability benefits.

The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedures and timelines outlined in the POEA-SEC. The Court outlined specific guidelines, stating, “The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within 120 days from repatriation. The period may be extended to 240 days if justifiable reason exists for its extension.” The Court underscored that if the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within these periods, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total.

In this case, the company-designated physician issued a “fit to work” certification 263 days after San Jose’s repatriation, exceeding the 240-day limit. The Supreme Court referred to its previous ruling in Vergara v. Hammonia, which provided clarity on the matter:

[A] temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.

This affirmed that if no assessment is made within the prescribed period, the seafarer’s condition is conclusively presumed to be total and permanently disabled.

The Supreme Court clarified that the lapse of the 120/240-day period does not automatically guarantee entitlement to disability compensation. The POEA-SEC bases disability on a schedule of benefits, assuming a valid and timely assessment from the company-designated physician. Without such an assessment, there is no basis for determining the disability rating.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that while San Jose’s treatment extended beyond 120 days, justifying an extension to 240 days, the physician’s assessment was still untimely. The consequences of this untimeliness was that San Jose was deemed to be permanently and totally disabled. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with the POEA-SEC guidelines to protect the rights of seafarers.

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision to reinstate the LA’s award of total and permanent disability compensation to San Jose. However, the Court also addressed other aspects of the CA’s decision. The Court ruled that the awards for attorney’s fees, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract, and financial assistance were erroneous due to lack of legal basis.

The Court emphasized that attorney’s fees are not automatically granted. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, factual, legal, and equitable grounds must justify an award for attorney’s fees. In the absence of bad faith on the part of the employer, such an award is deemed inappropriate. The Court also clarified that the employer’s liability for salaries is limited to the period the seafarer is onboard the vessel. After signing off, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance until declared fit to work or assessed with a disability rating.

FAQs

What is the 240-day rule for seafarers?	It is the maximum period within which a company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on a seafarer’s disability after repatriation. Failure to do so results in the seafarer being deemed totally and permanently disabled.
What happens if the company doctor doesn’t issue an assessment within 240 days?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the 240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is automatically considered total and permanent, entitling them to disability benefits.
What kind of compensation is a seafarer entitled to if deemed permanently disabled?	A seafarer deemed permanently and totally disabled is entitled to disability compensation as specified in the POEA-SEC, which in this case was US$ 60,000.00, or its peso equivalent.
Are seafarers always entitled to attorney’s fees in disability claims?	No, attorney’s fees are not automatically awarded. They are only granted if there is a legal basis, such as bad faith on the part of the employer, which was not proven in this case.
Is the employer responsible for the seafarer’s salary for the entire duration of the treatment?	The employer is only liable for the seafarer’s salary while they are onboard the vessel. After signing off, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to their basic wage until they are declared fit to work or assessed with a disability rating.
What is the role of the POEA-SEC in disability claims for seafarers?	The POEA-SEC (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract) governs the employment of Filipino seafarers and outlines the procedures and benefits for disability claims, including the 120/240-day rule.
What should a seafarer do upon repatriation due to illness or injury?	A seafarer should immediately report to the company-designated physician within three working days for a post-employment medical examination to begin the assessment process.
Can the 120-day period for medical assessment be extended?	Yes, the initial 120-day period can be extended up to a maximum of 240 days if the seafarer requires further medical treatment, but the company-designated physician must justify the extension.

In conclusion, the Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc. v. San Jose case reaffirms the importance of adhering to the timelines set forth in the POEA-SEC for assessing seafarers’ disabilities. It underscores the obligation of company-designated physicians to issue timely assessments to protect the rights of seafarers and ensure they receive just compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses.

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: Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc. v. San Jose, G.R. No. 220949, July 23, 2018