In Daño v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, the Supreme Court emphasized the employer’s responsibility to provide medical attention to injured seafarers, even if the seafarer doesn’t strictly comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination within three days of repatriation. The court ruled that the employer’s failure to provide medical referral or treatment to the seafarer, especially when the injury was already evident, cannot be excused by claiming non-compliance with procedural requirements. This decision protects seafarers by ensuring they receive necessary medical care for work-related injuries, preventing employers from avoiding their obligations through technical loopholes.

Slipped at Sea, Denied on Land: Does a Technicality Trump a Seafarer’s Right to Medical Care?

Eliza Grace A. Daño, a cocktail waitress employed by Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and Saffron Maritime Limited, suffered a workplace injury when she slipped and fell on board the M/V Saga Sapphire. Despite seeking medical attention during her employment and providing evidence of her injury, the respondents allegedly denied her medical assistance upon repatriation, offering her a new contract instead. This led to a legal battle focused on whether Daño’s failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within three days of repatriation should bar her from receiving disability benefits, despite the clear evidence of her injury sustained while at sea.

The heart of this case lies in interpreting Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which governs compensation and benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses suffered by seafarers. This provision outlines the employer’s liabilities and the seafarer’s obligations, including the requirement for a post-employment medical examination. The pertinent portion of Section 20(A) states:

SEC. 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. –

A. 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:

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post­employment 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. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of Daño, granting her disability claim. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, emphasizing Daño’s failure to comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with the POEA-SEC’s stipulations. This divergence in rulings highlights the central tension in the case: balancing the seafarer’s right to compensation with the procedural requirements of the POEA-SEC.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. Justice Delos Santos, writing for the Second Division, emphasized that Daño’s injury was well-documented prior to her repatriation. The court noted that Daño had been examined by several physicians, including one on board the vessel immediately after her fall, and specialists at Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden and the American Medical Clinic in Russia. These examinations confirmed her back contusion and rib fracture. Therefore, the Court emphasized the obligation of the shipping company to provide proper medical referral or treatment to the injured seafarer within the given period.

The Court also highlighted a critical point: Daño was repatriated prematurely, before the expiration of her nine-month contract. This undermined the respondents’ argument that her repatriation was due to contract expiration and further supported her claim that her repatriation was medically motivated. The Court cited precedent, notably De Andres v. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., which recognized exceptions to the three-day post-employment medical examination rule. These exceptions include situations where the seafarer is incapacitated or when the employer refuses to submit the seafarer to the examination.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden of proving that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated doctor, citing Apines v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc.. The Court found that the respondents failed to fulfill this obligation, instead denying Daño’s medical referral and offering her a new contract. This refusal, the Court reasoned, prevented Daño from undergoing the necessary post-employment medical examination and obtaining an official assessment of her condition from the company-designated physician.

Furthermore, the Court cited Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Remo, which states that “the absence of a post-employment medical examination cannot be used to defeat respondent’s claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to the seafarer’s fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal” of the shipping company. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the CA erred in denying Daño’s disability claim based on her failure to submit to a post-employment medical examination, as this failure was a direct result of the respondents’ refusal to provide the necessary medical referral.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in Daño v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation underscores the importance of protecting the rights and welfare of seafarers who suffer work-related injuries. It clarifies that employers cannot use procedural technicalities to evade their responsibility to provide medical care, especially when the injury is well-documented. This ruling serves as a reminder that the POEA-SEC is intended to safeguard seafarers’ rights, not to create loopholes for employers to exploit. The decision reinforces the principle that substance should prevail over form, particularly when dealing with the health and well-being of those who risk their lives at sea.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a seafarer’s failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within three days of repatriation, as required by the POEA-SEC, should bar her from receiving disability benefits, despite evidence of a work-related injury.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the seafarer, holding that the employer’s refusal to provide medical referral or treatment excused the seafarer’s non-compliance with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement.
Why did the Court side with the seafarer?	The Court sided with the seafarer because her injury was well-documented prior to repatriation, and the employer denied her medical assistance upon her return, offering a new contract instead. The court emphasized that the employer failed to fulfill its obligation to provide proper medical care.
What is the significance of Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC?	Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC governs compensation and benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses suffered by seafarers. It outlines both the employer’s liabilities and the seafarer’s obligations, including the post-employment medical examination.
What are the exceptions to the three-day post-employment medical examination rule?	Exceptions to the three-day rule include situations where the seafarer is incapacitated or when the employer refuses to submit the seafarer to the examination.
Who bears the burden of proving medical referral?	The employer bears the burden of proving that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated doctor for a post-employment medical examination.
What benefits was the seafarer entitled to?	The seafarer was entitled to US$60,000.00 as permanent and total disability benefits, US$3,200.00 as sick wage allowance, and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total amount, plus legal interest.
What is the key takeaway from this case for seafarers?	Seafarers should know that employers cannot use procedural technicalities to avoid their responsibility to provide medical care for work-related injuries, especially when the injury is already documented.

This case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of Filipino seafarers, ensuring that they receive adequate medical attention and compensation for work-related injuries. It serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving similar disputes, emphasizing the employer’s duty of care and the importance of upholding seafarers’ welfare above strict procedural compliance.

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: ELIZA GRACE A. DAÑO, VS. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, SAFFRON MARITIME LIMITED AND/OR MYLA BELZA, G.R. No. 236351, September 07, 2020