In Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. v. Quijano, the Supreme Court addressed the entitlement of a seafarer to disability benefits when his employer failed to provide a timely and definite medical assessment. The Court ruled that the company’s failure to provide a final assessment within the 120/240-day period resulted in the seafarer’s disability being deemed total and permanent by operation of law. This decision emphasizes the employer’s responsibility to ensure timely medical evaluation and support for seafarers, safeguarding their rights to just compensation for work-related illnesses.

Abandonment at Sea? The Case of the Unassessed Seafarer

Primo Quijano, a cook employed by Marlow Navigation, filed a claim for disability benefits after developing several illnesses, including liver abscess and diabetes, which he attributed to his work environment. Quijano argued that upon repatriation, his request for medical assistance was denied, leading him to seek independent medical evaluation. The central legal question revolved around whether Quijano was entitled to disability benefits despite not undergoing a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician, as mandated by the POEA-SEC.

The legal framework governing seafarers’ disability claims is primarily found in Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which outlines the obligations of the employer when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness during the term of their contract. This provision mandates that the employer provide medical attention until the seafarer is declared fit or the degree of disability is established. Crucially, the seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon their return, except when physically incapacitated, in which case a written notice suffices.

In this case, the Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the timelines stipulated in the POEA-SEC. The Court emphasized the consequences of the company-designated physician’s failure to provide a definite assessment within the 120/240-day period. According to established jurisprudence:

Failure of the company-designated physician to comply with his or her duty to issue a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or unfitness to resume work within the prescribed period shall transform the latter’s temporary total disability into one of total and permanent by operation of law x x x.

The Court found that Quijano had reported to the petitioners’ office within the mandated three-day period, seeking medical assistance, which was allegedly denied. This denial prompted him to seek medical attention from an independent physician. The Court noted the significance of this action, stating that, “Logically, Quijano’s resort to an independent physician to check on his condition on February 3, 2014 was most likely due to the company’s rejection of his plea for medical assistance and treatment.”

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ claim that Quijano was repatriated due to the expiration of his contract. Upon review, the Court found that Quijano’s contract was pre-terminated, as he was signed off the vessel prior to the actual end date. The Court stated, “Since Quijano’s contract of service was for a period of six (6) months, reckoned from his actual departure from the point of hire or until February 18, 2014, his sign-off from the vessel on January 30, 2014 was clearly short of the said contracted period.”

With respect to the work-relatedness of Quijano’s illnesses, the Court referenced Section 20 (A) (4) of the POEA-SEC, which establishes a disputable presumption that a non-listed illness is work-related. The Court explained that “Section 20 (A) (4) thereof explicitly establishes a disputable presumption that a non-listed illness is work-related, and the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption, which petitioners failed to discharge.”

Building on this principle, the Court found that the PVA (Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators) and the CA’s (Court of Appeals) factual findings were consistent and supported by substantial evidence. The Court generally defers to these findings unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or lack of evidentiary support. Because the petitioners did not demonstrate any arbitrariness or lack of evidence, the Court upheld the PVA’s and CA’s rulings.

However, the Court also noted that the amount awarded needed adjustment based on Quijano’s actual position and the CBA classification. The Court determined that Quijano’s role as a Chief Cook corresponded to the “Rating” classification under the CBA, leading to a reduction in the disability benefits from US$127,932.00 to US$95,949.00. Here is a summary:

Classification	Original Award	Corrected Award
Junior Officer (Initially Claimed)	US$127,932.00	N/A
Rating (Actual)	N/A	US$95,949.00

Moreover, the Court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, citing Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, which allows for such fees in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws. The Court reiterated that when an employee is compelled to litigate to protect their rights, attorney’s fees are warranted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer was entitled to disability benefits when the employer allegedly denied medical assistance and failed to provide a timely medical assessment.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract) sets the terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers. It is a standard contract deemed incorporated into every seafarer’s employment agreement.
What is the significance of the 120/240-day rule?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which the company-designated physician must provide a final and definite assessment of the seafarer’s condition. Failure to do so within this period may result in the seafarer’s disability being deemed total and permanent by operation of law.
What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the 120/240-day period, the seafarer’s temporary total disability may be converted into a total and permanent disability, entitling them to disability benefits.
What is the disputable presumption of work-relatedness?	The disputable presumption of work-relatedness means that illnesses not specifically listed in the POEA-SEC are presumed to be work-related, placing the burden on the employer to prove otherwise.
How did the Court determine the correct amount of disability benefits?	The Court determined the correct amount of disability benefits based on the seafarer’s actual position (rating) and the corresponding compensation scale outlined in the CBA.
What is the basis for awarding attorney’s fees?	Attorney’s fees are awarded when the employee is compelled to litigate to protect their rights and interests, as provided under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code.
What is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?	A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a negotiated agreement between an employer and a labor union representing the employees, setting forth the terms and conditions of employment.

In conclusion, the Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. v. Quijano case underscores the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations to provide timely and adequate medical assistance to seafarers. The ruling clarifies the consequences of failing to comply with the POEA-SEC guidelines and emphasizes the seafarer’s right to just compensation for work-related illnesses, ensuring their protection and welfare.

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: Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. v. Quijano, G.R. No. 234346, August 14, 2019