ASG Law

Tag: POEA Contract

  • Constructive Dismissal of OFWs: When Unbearable Work Conditions Lead to Illegal Termination

    When Mistreatment Abroad Becomes Illegal Dismissal: Understanding Constructive Dismissal for OFWs

    G.R. No. 264158, January 31, 2024

    Imagine working overseas, far from your family, only to face constant abuse and contract violations. Can you simply quit? The Supreme Court’s decision in Melba Alcantara Denusta v. Migrant Workers Manpower Agency clarifies when an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) can claim constructive dismissal due to unbearable working conditions, even if they initiate the termination.

    This case underscores the importance of protecting OFWs from exploitation and ensuring their rights are upheld, even when working in foreign lands. It sets a precedent for recognizing the subtle forms of illegal dismissal and providing remedies for unfairly treated workers.

    Defining Constructive Dismissal: A Worker’s Escape from Unbearable Conditions

    Constructive dismissal isn’t always about being directly fired. It occurs when an employer creates a hostile or intolerable work environment that forces an employee to resign. This can include:

    • Significant reductions in pay or benefits
    • Demotion to a lower position
    • Constant harassment or discrimination
    • Unsafe or unhealthy working conditions

    The key legal principle is that the employee’s resignation must be a direct result of the employer’s actions. The employee must demonstrate that a reasonable person in their situation would have felt compelled to resign. The Labor Code protects employees from this scenario.

    Article 301 [292] Termination by employee. An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employee may terminate the employment without serving any notice on the employer if the transfer to another workplace is unreasonable, or continuing the work is rendered unduly burdensome because of serious insult by the employer or his representative, inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative, commission of a crime/offense by the employer or his representative, and other similar cases.

    For OFWs, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract further protects them. This contract outlines specific rights and responsibilities for both the employer and the employee, and violations of this contract can form the basis for a constructive dismissal claim. The POEA Contract outlines circumstances where the employee may terminate the contract due to employer’s actions.

    The Case of Melba Denusta: A Cook Islands Nightmare

    Melba Denusta was hired as a Kitchen Hand for The Lunch Box Ltd. in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, through Migrant Workers Manpower Agency. Her two-year contract promised a weekly salary of NZ$400.00. However, her experience quickly turned sour:

    • She was paid less than the agreed rate (NZ$300 instead of NZ$400).
    • She wasn’t provided with accommodation, despite the contract stating otherwise.
    • She faced verbal abuse and threats from her employer’s mother, Vaine.

    The situation escalated when Vaine, while holding a knife, told Denusta to leave or be killed. Unable to bear the mistreatment, Denusta asked to be released from her contract and was eventually repatriated.

    Denusta filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, damages, and other fees against the recruitment agency and foreign employer.

    Here’s the journey through the court system:

    • Labor Arbiter (LA): Ruled in favor of Denusta, finding illegal dismissal due to contract violations and threats.
    • National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Reversed the LA’s decision on illegal dismissal, stating it was Denusta who wanted her employment terminated.
    • Court of Appeals (CA): Dismissed Denusta’s petition for *certiorari* due to late filing.
    • Supreme Court: Reversed the CA and sided with Denusta, declaring constructive dismissal.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the unbearable treatment Denusta endured. As Justice Gaerlan wrote, “Vaine’s actions were nothing but oppressive. To recall, she uttered insulting words at petitioner and even threatened her with a knife. These left petitioner with no other recourse but to request her termination from employment.”

    The court also acknowledged the breach of contract, as Denusta was paid less than agreed and not provided with suitable accommodation. The Court ruled that while she requested to be released, this was because of the abusive work environment and thus, the termination was deemed illegal and she was entitled to back pay.

    Implications for OFWs and Employers: Lessons Learned

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities of recruitment agencies and foreign employers towards OFWs. It reinforces the principle that OFWs are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment and fair contract terms.

    Key Lessons:

    • OFWs should document all instances of contract violations and abuse. This includes keeping records of pay stubs, communication with employers, and any incidents of harassment or threats.
    • Recruitment agencies must ensure that foreign employers adhere to Philippine labor laws and international standards. They have a duty to protect the welfare of the workers they deploy.
    • Employers cannot create intolerable work conditions that force employees to resign. Such actions can be considered constructive dismissal and result in legal repercussions.

    Hypothetical Example: An OFW is hired as a caregiver but is forced to work 18-hour days with no rest breaks and is constantly verbally abused by the employer. Even if the caregiver asks to be sent home, they can likely claim constructive dismissal due to the intolerable working conditions.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is the difference between illegal dismissal and constructive dismissal?

    A: Illegal dismissal is when an employer terminates an employee without just cause or due process. Constructive dismissal is when an employer creates an intolerable work environment that forces the employee to resign; in essence, the employee is forced to resign.

    Q: What evidence do I need to prove constructive dismissal?

    A: Evidence can include pay stubs, emails, text messages, witness testimonies, and any other documentation that demonstrates the intolerable working conditions.

    Q: How long do I have to file a complaint for constructive dismissal?

    A: The prescriptive period for filing illegal dismissal cases is generally three (3) years from the date of the dismissal.

    Q: Can I claim damages if I am constructively dismissed?

    A: Yes, you may be entitled to back wages, separation pay (if applicable), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

    Q: What should I do if I am experiencing abuse or contract violations while working overseas?

    A: Document everything, report the incidents to your recruitment agency, and seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

    Q: I signed a resignation letter, but I was forced to. Can I still claim constructive dismissal?

    A: Yes, if you can prove that you were forced or coerced into signing the resignation letter due to the intolerable working conditions, the resignation may be considered invalid.

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

  • Understanding Disability Benefits for Seafarers: Insights from a Supreme Court Ruling on Financial Assistance

    The Importance of Proper Procedure in Claiming Disability Benefits

    Heirs of Amadeo Alex G. Pajares v. North Sea Marine Services Corporation, G.R. No. 244437, September 14, 2020

    Imagine working tirelessly on a cruise ship, only to be struck down by a debilitating illness. For seafarers like Amadeo Alex G. Pajares, the promise of disability benefits can be a lifeline during such challenging times. Yet, navigating the legal waters to secure these benefits can be as daunting as the seas they sail. In the case of the Heirs of Amadeo Alex G. Pajares against North Sea Marine Services Corporation, the Supreme Court of the Philippines shed light on the critical importance of following proper procedure when claiming disability benefits.

    Amadeo, a dedicated Suite Attendant on the Silver Whisper cruise ship, was exposed to harsh cleaning chemicals daily. When he suffered severe nosebleeds and was eventually diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma, a type of blood cancer, he sought the disability benefits he believed he was entitled to under his employment contract. However, his journey through the legal system revealed the complexities and procedural nuances that can determine the outcome of such claims.

    Legal Context: Disability Benefits and Seafarer’s Rights

    In the Philippines, the rights of seafarers are protected under various legal frameworks, including the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract and the Labor Code. These laws ensure that seafarers receive compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses that result in disability.

    Disability Benefits refer to the financial compensation awarded to employees who suffer from permanent or temporary incapacity due to work-related incidents. For seafarers, the POEA contract specifies the conditions under which they can claim these benefits, including the requirement to submit medical evidence and follow a specific procedure for assessment.

    The company-designated physician plays a crucial role in this process, as their medical assessment is often considered authoritative. However, seafarers have the right to seek a second opinion from an independent physician and, if necessary, a third doctor’s assessment if the first two opinions differ.

    Consider the case of a seafarer who develops a respiratory condition due to prolonged exposure to harmful substances on board. If the company-designated physician deems the illness non-work-related, the seafarer must gather substantial evidence to challenge this assessment, including medical reports from independent doctors and documentation of their work conditions.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Amadeo Alex G. Pajares

    Amadeo’s story began with a shipboard employment contract with North Sea Marine Services Corporation, where he was tasked with maintaining the cabins on the Silver Whisper. His duties involved handling strong cleaning chemicals, which he alleged led to his severe nosebleeds and subsequent diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma.

    Upon repatriation to the Philippines, Amadeo reported to North Sea and was referred to the company-designated clinic. Despite his inquiries about returning to work, he was informed that his treatment had been discontinued. When he attempted to obtain copies of his medical reports, he was denied, though he managed to take a snapshot of his final medical assessment, which indicated a Grade 1 Disability.

    Seeking a second opinion, Amadeo consulted an independent physician who confirmed his diagnosis and declared him unfit for sea service. He then requested a third medical opinion from North Sea, but his request went unanswered. This led to a series of mediation and conciliation proceedings, culminating in a decision by the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Panel of VAs) to dismiss his claim for disability benefits, citing a lack of substantial evidence to prove that his illness was work-related.

    North Sea appealed the Panel of VAs’ decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the dismissal but reduced the financial assistance awarded to Amadeo’s heirs from US$20,000 to US$8,500. The CA reasoned that while Amadeo was not entitled to disability benefits, he deserved financial assistance due to his long service and the humanitarian considerations of his situation.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that a non-appellant cannot seek affirmative relief. As Amadeo’s heirs did not appeal the Panel of VAs’ decision, they could not request a modification of the judgment to include disability benefits.

    Key quotes from the Supreme Court’s reasoning include:

    “It is well settled and unquestionable that a party who does not appeal or file a petition for review is not entitled to any affirmative relief.”

    “Even if Amadeo is not entitled to any disability benefits, the Court, has in several instances, awarded financial assistance to separated employees due to humanitarian considerations through the principle of social and compassionate justice for the working class.”

    Practical Implications: Navigating Disability Claims

    The ruling in the Heirs of Amadeo Alex G. Pajares case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking disability benefits. Seafarers and their legal representatives must be diligent in gathering and presenting evidence, following the proper channels for medical assessments, and appealing decisions within the required timeframes.

    For businesses employing seafarers, this case highlights the need to ensure transparency and fairness in handling disability claims. Companies should provide clear communication about medical assessments and be open to third-party evaluations when necessary.

    Key Lessons:

    • Seafarers must follow the procedural steps outlined in their employment contracts to claim disability benefits.
    • Medical evidence from both company-designated and independent physicians is crucial in proving the work-related nature of an illness.
    • Appealing decisions promptly is essential to securing the desired outcome in disability claims.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What are disability benefits for seafarers?

    Disability benefits are financial compensations provided to seafarers who suffer from work-related injuries or illnesses that result in permanent or temporary incapacity.

    How can a seafarer prove that an illness is work-related?

    A seafarer must provide medical evidence, including assessments from both the company-designated physician and an independent physician, to demonstrate the link between their work and their illness.

    What happens if the company-designated physician and the independent physician disagree?

    In case of disagreement, the seafarer can request a third medical opinion to resolve the dispute.

    Can a seafarer appeal a decision on disability benefits?

    Yes, a seafarer can appeal a decision through the appropriate legal channels, such as the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Court of Appeals, within the specified timeframes.

    What are the implications of not appealing a decision on disability benefits?

    Failure to appeal a decision means that a seafarer cannot seek affirmative relief or modification of the judgment in their favor.

    How can financial assistance be awarded in lieu of disability benefits?

    Financial assistance may be awarded based on humanitarian considerations and the principle of social and compassionate justice, even if disability benefits are not granted.

    ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your rights as a seafarer are protected.

  • The 240-Day Rule: Protecting Seafarers’ Rights to Full Disability Benefits

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reinforced the rights of seafarers to receive full disability benefits when shipping companies fail to provide a definitive assessment of their medical condition within the legally mandated time frame. This decision clarifies the application of the 240-day rule, ensuring that seafarers are not unfairly deprived of compensation for permanent and total disabilities arising from illnesses or injuries sustained while on duty. The court emphasized that a ‘potential disability grading’ does not meet the standard of a final and definite assessment, protecting seafarers from delayed or insufficient disability benefits. This landmark ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural timelines and comprehensive medical evaluations in safeguarding the welfare of Filipino seafarers.

    Sailing Through Uncertainty: How a Delayed Diagnosis Secured a Seafarer’s Total Disability Claim

    Cesar C. Pelagio, a motorman employed by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI), experienced breathing difficulties and pain while working aboard a vessel. Upon repatriation, he underwent medical examinations revealing several conditions, including Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Radiculopathy. The company-designated physician initially assessed Pelagio with a Grade 11 disability, while a private physician determined a Grade 8 disability, declaring him unfit for his previous occupation. The core legal question revolves around determining the extent of disability benefits Pelagio is entitled to, especially when the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definite assessment within the prescribed period.

    The case hinges on the interpretation of the 120/240-day rule, which dictates the timeline for assessing a seafarer’s disability. The Supreme Court, in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, clarified that while the company-designated physician has an initial 120 days to provide a final assessment, this period may be extended to 240 days if further treatment is required. However, the extension is not automatic. The company must justify the need for additional time, and failure to provide a final and definite assessment within the extended period results in the seafarer’s disability being conclusively presumed as permanent and total. This legal framework aims to balance the interests of both the seafarer and the employer, ensuring a fair and timely resolution of disability claims.

    In Pelagio’s case, the Court found that the medical reports issued by the company-designated physician did not constitute a final and definite assessment. The July 27, 2010 report explicitly stated that the findings were interim, while the August 5, 2010 report only provided a “potential disability grading.” These assessments lacked the conclusiveness required to determine the true extent of Pelagio’s disability within the prescribed timeframe. Furthermore, the Court noted the belated submission of the August 5, 2010 Medical Report by the respondents. This report was only presented during the motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, without any reasonable explanation for the delay. Such tardiness cast doubt on its credibility and admissibility, as it violated the principles of fair play and equitable procedure.

    “Case law instructs that while strict compliance to technical rules is not required in labor cases, liberal policy should still be pursuant to equitable principles of law. In this regard, belated submission of evidence may be allowed only if the delay in its presentation is sufficiently justified; the evidence adduced is undeniably material to the cause of a party; and the subject evidence should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be established.”

    The Court emphasized that labor cases, while not strictly bound by technical rules, must still adhere to equitable principles. The respondents’ failure to justify the delayed submission of the August 5, 2010 Medical Report undermined its probative value and highlighted the lack of a conclusive assessment within the mandated period. As such, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of timely and definitive medical assessments to protect seafarers’ rights.

    The absence of a timely and definitive disability assessment led the Court to apply the conclusive presumption of permanent and total disability in favor of Pelagio. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the opinions of both the company-designated and independent physicians become irrelevant when the company fails to provide a final assessment within the 120/240-day period. This is because the law aims to provide a clear and predictable framework for resolving disability claims, preventing undue delays and uncertainties for seafarers who have suffered work-related illnesses or injuries. Thus, by operation of law, Pelagio was entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the CA ruling and reinstated the NLRC decision, awarding Pelagio US$70,000.00 for permanent total disability benefits and US$7,000.00 for attorney’s fees. This decision underscores the legal protection afforded to seafarers under Philippine law.

    This case not only reaffirms the procedural requirements for assessing seafarers’ disabilities but also serves as a reminder of the substantive rights that protect them. The ruling ensures that shipping companies adhere to the timelines and assessment standards set by law, thereby safeguarding the welfare of Filipino seafarers who contribute significantly to the country’s economy. It also highlights the importance of presenting evidence promptly and providing reasonable justifications for any delays. The decision promotes transparency and accountability in the handling of disability claims, fostering a more equitable environment for seafarers seeking compensation for work-related illnesses or injuries. This outcome provides clarity on the consequences of failing to meet the deadlines for medical assessments.

    Moreover, the Court imposed a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the monetary awards from the finality of the decision until full payment. This additional measure ensures that Pelagio receives just compensation, accounting for the time elapsed since the initial claim and the need to preserve the real value of the award. The imposition of legal interest is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, which aims to provide full restitution to aggrieved parties and discourage delays in satisfying legal obligations. As such, the outcome reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Cesar C. Pelagio, was entitled to permanent total disability benefits when the company-designated physician failed to provide a final and definite assessment within the 120/240-day period. The court determined that the lack of a timely and conclusive assessment entitled the seafarer to such benefits.
    What is the 120/240-day rule? The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which a company-designated physician must provide a final assessment of a seafarer’s disability. Initially, the physician has 120 days, which can be extended to 240 days if justified, but failure to provide a final assessment within this extended period results in the seafarer’s disability being deemed permanent and total.
    What constitutes a ‘final and definite assessment’? A ‘final and definite assessment’ is a conclusive medical report that clearly states the seafarer’s disability grading. It should not be an interim or potential assessment, but rather a definitive determination of the seafarer’s condition and its impact on their ability to work.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the 240-day period? If the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the 240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is conclusively presumed to be permanent and total, regardless of any justification. This entitles the seafarer to full disability benefits.
    Why was the August 5, 2010 Medical Report not considered? The August 5, 2010 Medical Report was not considered because it was submitted belatedly during the motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, without any reasonable explanation for the delay. Additionally, the report only provided a ‘potential disability grading,’ which did not meet the standard of a final and definite assessment.
    What are permanent total disability benefits? Permanent total disability benefits are compensation paid to a seafarer who is unable to return to their sea duties due to illness or injury sustained during their employment. These benefits aim to provide financial support to seafarers who have lost their ability to earn a living.
    What is the significance of this ruling for Filipino seafarers? This ruling reinforces the rights of Filipino seafarers to receive fair and timely compensation for work-related disabilities. It ensures that shipping companies adhere to the prescribed timelines and assessment standards, thereby protecting the welfare of seafarers who contribute significantly to the country’s economy.
    What was the final decision of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the NLRC decision, awarding Cesar C. Pelagio US$70,000.00 for permanent total disability benefits and US$7,000.00 for attorney’s fees, plus legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision until full payment.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Pelagio case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and providing definitive medical assessments in seafarers’ disability claims. It underscores the legal protections afforded to Filipino seafarers and ensures that their rights are upheld in the face of delayed or insufficient medical evaluations. This ruling promotes transparency and accountability in the handling of disability claims, contributing to a more equitable environment for seafarers seeking compensation for work-related illnesses or injuries.

    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: Cesar C. Pelagio vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 231773, March 11, 2019

  • Dietary Negligence and Seafarer’s Rights: Colon Cancer as a Compensable Illness

    In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. vs. Jessie D. Alcibar, the Supreme Court affirmed that colon cancer can be a compensable work-related illness for seafarers if conditions aboard the vessel, such as poor dietary provisions, aggravate the risk. The Court emphasized that employers must not waive their right to a post-employment medical examination, and that seafarers who prove their illness was work-related are entitled to disability benefits and sickness pay. This ruling ensures that seafarers’ health is protected, and employers are held accountable for negligence that contributes to illnesses.

    From Ship to Shore: Can a Seafarer’s Diet Lead to Disability Compensation?

    This case revolves around Jessie D. Alcibar, a seaman who claimed his colon cancer was caused or aggravated by the poor dietary provisions he received while working on board a vessel owned by Jebsens Maritime, Inc. Alcibar argued that the high-fat, high-cholesterol, and low-fiber foods he was consistently served contributed to his illness. Upon repatriation, after experiencing severe pain and bleeding, he sought medical attention and was diagnosed with colon cancer. Alcibar then filed a complaint for permanent disability compensation, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees, asserting his condition was work-related.

    The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Alcibar, stating that the dietary conditions aboard the vessel increased his risk of contracting colon cancer, thus making it compensable. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, arguing that colon cancer was not work-related and that Alcibar had not complied with post-employment medical examination requirements. The Court of Appeals (CA) then overturned the NLRC’s decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, and emphasizing that colon cancer is disputably presumed to be work-related, especially considering Alcibar’s extended employment and the poor provisions provided by the petitioners.

    The Supreme Court then addressed the core issue of whether Alcibar’s illness was indeed compensable under the existing laws and contracts governing seafarers’ employment. The Court emphasized that Alcibar had complied with the requirements of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by willingly submitting himself for a post-employment medical examination. However, the petitioners waived their right to examine Alcibar by failing to schedule the examination after he requested it. This failure became a critical point in the Court’s decision, as it underscored the employer’s negligence in addressing the seafarer’s health concerns.

    Section 20(B) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract outlines the liabilities of the employer when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness. It states:

    However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.

    Additionally, the CBA between Alcibar and the petitioners specified the evidence required to prove entitlement to sick pay and disability compensation. Article 28.2 of the CBA states:

    The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated jointly between the Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor shall be final and binding on both parties.

    In the case of Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag, the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind the post-employment medical examination. The Court explained that it allows the company-designated physician to accurately determine whether the illness sustained by the claimant was work-related. Failing to provide this opportunity undermines the process and can be seen as a waiver of the employer’s rights. The Court then referenced Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which provides the conditions that must be met for an illness to be considered a compensable occupational disease:

    For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all the following conditions must be established:

    1. The seafarer’s work must involve the risk described herein;
    2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;
    3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;
    4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

    Building on this legal framework, the Court referenced Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, where it was held that colon cancer could be considered a work-related disease under Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Court emphasized that if a seaman can prove that conditions inside the vessel increased or aggravated the risk of colon cancer, they are entitled to disability benefits.

    The Supreme Court examined whether Alcibar had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his colon cancer was work-related. Alcibar had alleged that the poor dietary provisions he received at sea increased his risk of contracting the disease. Notably, the petitioners did not specifically deny this allegation in any of their pleadings, which, according to Section 11 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, is deemed an admission. This lack of denial was a significant factor in the Court’s assessment.

    Furthermore, it was established that Alcibar suffered from internal hemorrhoids during his time as a seaman, a condition that was likely aggravated by the inadequate dietary provisions. A medical report from a doctor in Westminster, Canada, diagnosed Alcibar with internal hemorrhoids and recommended a diet low in fat and cholesterol but high in fiber, further supporting the link between his dietary conditions and health issues. In addition, a medical certificate issued by AMOSUP Seamen’s Hospital in Cebu confirmed the existence of Alcibar’s colon cancer and the laparoscopic operation he underwent to remove the tumor, solidifying the timeline and severity of his condition.

    The Court then emphasized that illnesses acquired or aggravated while on duty on board a vessel, caused by the conditions on board, are considered work-related if proven by substantial evidence. In Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court reiterated the necessity of proving a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness and the work for which they were contracted. The Supreme Court concluded that Alcibar had indeed demonstrated through substantial evidence that his colon cancer was work-related, stemming from the conditions he faced while at sea. Consequently, the Court upheld the CA’s decision to grant Alcibar disability benefits and sickness pay.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Jessie Alcibar’s colon cancer could be considered a compensable work-related illness due to the dietary conditions aboard the vessel, and whether his employer, Jebsens Maritime, fulfilled its obligations under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and CBA.
    What is the POEA Standard Employment Contract? The POEA Standard Employment Contract sets the minimum terms and conditions for Filipino seafarers working on international vessels, including provisions for compensation and benefits in case of work-related injury or illness.
    What does the CBA refer to in this context? The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a negotiated agreement between the seafarers’ union and the maritime company, which can provide additional benefits and protections beyond those in the POEA contract.
    What is the significance of the post-employment medical examination? The post-employment medical examination, to be conducted by a company-designated physician, is crucial for determining whether a seafarer’s illness is work-related and thus compensable, and must be done within three days upon arrival.
    What if the seafarer and company doctors disagree? If the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor can provide a final and binding decision.
    What evidence did Alcibar present to support his claim? Alcibar presented evidence that the dietary provisions aboard the vessel were high in fat and cholesterol and low in fiber, and that he was diagnosed with internal hemorrhoids while still at sea, which was aggravated by his diet.
    Why was the employer’s failure to schedule a medical exam important? The employer’s failure to schedule a post-employment medical examination for Alcibar was considered a waiver of their right to contest the work-relatedness of his illness, strengthening Alcibar’s claim for compensation.
    How did the court determine colon cancer could be work-related? The court relied on established jurisprudence, such as Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, stating that colon cancer is considered a work-related disease if conditions on board the vessel increased or aggravated the risk.
    What is meant by “substantial evidence” in this context? Substantial evidence refers to relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other conclusions are possible.
    What are the implications of this ruling for other seafarers? This ruling reinforces the rights of seafarers to claim compensation for illnesses aggravated by working conditions, and emphasizes employers’ responsibility to provide proper medical attention and not neglect their health.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. vs. Jessie D. Alcibar serves as a significant precedent, underscoring the importance of seafarers’ health and the responsibility of maritime employers to provide safe working conditions and adequate medical attention. By recognizing colon cancer as a potentially compensable illness linked to onboard dietary conditions, the Court has strengthened the protections available to seafarers under Philippine law.

    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: JEBSENS MARITIME, INC. VS. JESSIE D. ALCIBAR, G.R. No. 221117, February 20, 2019

  • Informing Seafarers: The Cornerstone of Due Process in Disability Claims

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that due process is paramount in seafarer disability claims, emphasizing that a company-designated physician must properly inform the seafarer of their medical assessment. Failure to do so renders any disability grading invalid, potentially entitling the seafarer to total and permanent disability benefits. This decision reinforces the importance of clear communication and adherence to procedural requirements in protecting the rights of Filipino seafarers.

    Unraveling Seafarer Rights: When a Missed Notice Meant a Full Claim

    This case, Arnel T. Gere vs. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc., revolves around a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits following an injury sustained on board a vessel. The central legal question is whether the company-designated physician complied with due process by properly informing the seafarer, Arnel Gere, of his medical assessment within the prescribed period. Gere argued that he was not duly informed, leading him to seek an independent medical opinion that contradicted the company’s assessment. This disagreement triggered a legal battle focusing on procedural compliance and the validity of the disability grading.

    The facts of the case reveal that Gere, working as an able seaman, suffered an injury to his right arm while performing his duties. Upon repatriation, he underwent medical examinations by the company-designated physician. The respondents claimed that an interim disability grading was issued in April 2014 and a final grading in August 2014. However, Gere asserted that he was never informed of these assessments. This assertion became the crux of the dispute, as the timing and manner of notification directly impacted his rights under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Ships (POEA Contract) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

    The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the interpretation of Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA Contract. This provision outlines the procedure for determining a seafarer’s disability grading, stating that the company-designated physician’s assessment controls the determination. However, if the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees, the matter must be referred to a neutral third-party physician whose decision is final and binding.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the referral to a third doctor is mandatory, as established in Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Rosales. The Court quoted:

    This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. In other words, the company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties. We have followed this rule in a string of cases x x x.

    However, the Court clarified that this mandatory procedure could only begin from the moment of proper notice to the seafarer of their medical assessment. It explicitly stated, “To require the seafarer to seek the decision of a neutral third party physician without primarily being informed of the assessment of the company­-designated physician is a clear violation of the tenets of due process, and shall not be countenanced by the Court.“

    The Court then examined the evidence presented by the respondents to prove that Gere was properly informed of his medical assessment. The evidence included letters from the attending physician to the company-designated physician, suggesting disability ratings. It also included an email to Gere’s counsel confirming a telephone conversation wherein the respondents advised the counsel of the company-designated physician’s assessment. However, the Court found these documents insufficient. The letters were internal communications, and the email notification to Gere’s counsel occurred after Gere had already initiated legal action. Consequently, the Court concluded that Gere was not properly informed of his medical assessment within the prescribed timeframe.

    The implications of this failure were significant. The Court noted that without proper notice, the 120-day and 240-day rules for determining disability would apply. Since Gere was not informed of any final medical assessment within that period, his disability was considered permanent and total by operation of law. The Court cited Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. vs. Quiogue, Jr. to support this point. Additionally, the Court emphasized that Gere was deprived of the opportunity to evaluate his medical assessment and decide whether to seek a neutral third doctor. Therefore, the mandatory referral to a third doctor was not applicable in this case.

    The Court ruled that the respondents’ reliance on the conflict-resolution procedure was self-serving, given their failure to properly notify Gere of his assessment. Upholding the company’s disability grading would be unjust and contrary to established guidelines. As a result, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which held that Gere’s disability was total and permanent due to the respondents’ failure to provide timely notice of the medical assessment.

    However, the Court also addressed the issue of the applicable CBA provisions. While the CBA provided for higher disability benefits, it required a disability grading of 50% or more or a certification from the company-designated physician that the seafarer was medically unfit to continue work. Since neither condition was met in Gere’s case, the Court determined that the POEA contract applied, entitling him to US$60,000.00 in disability benefits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the company-designated physician properly informed the seafarer of his medical assessment within the prescribed period. This determination impacted the validity of the disability grading and the seafarer’s entitlement to benefits.
    What is the significance of Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA Contract? Section 20(A)(3) outlines the procedure for determining a seafarer’s disability grading, emphasizing the importance of the company-designated physician’s assessment. It also provides for a mandatory referral to a neutral third doctor in case of disagreement between the seafarer’s and the company’s physicians.
    Why was the referral to a third doctor not applicable in this case? The referral to a third doctor was not applicable because the seafarer was not properly informed of the company-designated physician’s assessment. Without proper notice, the seafarer had no basis to contest the assessment or initiate the referral process.
    What are the 120-day and 240-day rules in seafarer disability claims? These rules refer to the timeframe within which the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment. Failure to do so within 120 days, or an extended 240 days with sufficient justification, results in the seafarer’s disability being considered permanent and total by operation of law.
    What is the effect of a company’s failure to provide timely notice of the medical assessment? Failure to provide timely notice deprives the seafarer of the opportunity to evaluate the assessment, seek a second opinion, and initiate the mandatory referral process. It also triggers the application of the 120-day and 240-day rules, potentially resulting in a finding of total and permanent disability.
    How did the Court determine the amount of disability benefits in this case? The Court determined that the POEA contract applied because the seafarer’s disability grading did not meet the 50% threshold required by the CBA for higher benefits. As such, the seafarer was entitled to US$60,000.00 under the POEA contract.
    What is the main takeaway from this Supreme Court decision? The main takeaway is that due process is paramount in seafarer disability claims. The company-designated physician must properly inform the seafarer of the medical assessment, and failure to do so can invalidate the disability grading and affect the seafarer’s entitlement to benefits.
    What should a seafarer do if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment? The seafarer should first ensure that they have received proper notice of the assessment. If they disagree, they should consult with their own physician and, if a conflicting assessment arises, request a referral to a neutral third-party physician as per Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA Contract.

    This case underscores the importance of procedural compliance and clear communication in seafarer disability claims. By emphasizing the need for proper notice and the mandatory nature of the third-party referral process, the Supreme Court has strengthened the protection of Filipino seafarers’ rights and ensured a fairer adjudication of disability 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: ARNEL T. GERE, PETITIONER, VS. ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. AND/OR ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT (ASIA), LTD., RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 226656, April 23, 2018

  • Timely Notice is Key: Seafarer Disability Claims and Employer Obligations

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of timely and proper communication from employers to seafarers regarding medical assessments of their work-related injuries. The court held that employers must ensure seafarers are fully informed of their medical condition, including examination results, treatments, diagnoses, and disability grading, within the prescribed periods. Failure to provide this information promptly can result in a seafarer’s disability being deemed total and permanent by operation of law, potentially entitling them to greater compensation. This decision underscores the employer’s duty to uphold due process and the seafarer’s right to be informed, ensuring fair handling of disability claims.

    From Ship to Shore: Ensuring Fair Disability Assessments for Seafarers

    Arnel Gere, a Filipino seafarer, suffered an injury while working aboard the vessel “MV JENNY N.” After an accident on January 4, 2014, he was repatriated to the Philippines and underwent medical examinations. The crux of the legal battle arose from conflicting accounts regarding the issuance and communication of Gere’s disability grading. Gere claimed the company-designated physician failed to provide a timely assessment within the 240-day period, leading him to consult his personal physician, who offered a different opinion. The central legal question became whether the company fulfilled its obligation to inform Gere of his medical assessment, and the consequences if they failed to do so.

    The Supreme Court addressed the procedural requirements for disability claims under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Ships (POEA Contract). This contract outlines a specific process when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury. According to Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA Contract, the company-designated physician’s medical assessment is initially controlling. However, the seafarer has the right to contest this assessment. Here’s the exact provision:

    Section 20 [B]. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness

    2. x x x x

    However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time as he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.

    3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of his permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

    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 with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

    If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the company-designated physician must not only issue a final medical assessment but also “give” the assessment to the seafarer. This means the seafarer must be fully and properly informed of their medical condition. The Court stated:

    In this regard, the company-designated physician is mandated to issue a medical certificate, which should be personally received by the seafarer, or, if not practicable, sent to him/her by any other means sanctioned by present rules. For indeed, proper notice is one of the cornerstones of due process, and the seafarer must be accorded the same especially so in cases where his/her well-being is at stake.

    The Court highlighted that this process is mandatory and can only begin from the moment of proper notice to the seafarer of the medical assessment. “To require the seafarer to seek the decision of a neutral third party physician without primarily being informed of the assessment of the company­-designated physician is a clear violation of the tenets of due process, and shall not be countenanced by the Court.”

    The Court found that the evidence presented by the respondents failed to prove that Gere was actually given a copy of the medical assessment. The respondents presented letters between Dr. Bernal, the orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician, suggesting disability ratings. However, the Court noted that these were merely suggested ratings and internal communications, not proof that Gere was properly informed. The Court also pointed to the communication between the respondents’ representative and Gere’s counsel, which occurred only after Gere had initiated action against the respondents.

    The Court emphasized that without proper notice, the 120-day and 240-day rules come into effect. Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. establishes that if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within 120 days (extendable to 240 days with sufficient justification), the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. In Gere’s case, there was no justification for extending the 120-day period, and the respondents failed to provide Gere with a copy of his medical certificate within this timeframe. Because Gere was not informed of the assessment, the mandatory referral to a neutral third doctor could not have been applicable.

    The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on the conflict-resolution procedure, stating it was a self-serving invocation of a rule they had disregarded. Considering the respondents’ failure to inform Gere of the company-designated physician’s assessment, the Court determined that Gere’s disability grading was, by operation of law, total and permanent.

    While Gere’s disability was deemed total and permanent, the specific benefits he was entitled to were determined by the POEA contract rather than the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA required a disability assessment of 50% or more, or a certification from the company-designated physician that the seafarer was medically unfit to continue work. Gere’s personal physician assessed him at a Grade 8 disability, which translates to 33.59% under the POEA Contract. The company-designated physician did not certify Gere as medically unfit. Therefore, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision to award Gere benefits based on the POEA contract, which provides for US$60,000.00 for total and permanent disability.

    The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of procedural due process in seafarer disability claims. It clarifies the employer’s responsibility to ensure seafarers are promptly and properly informed of their medical assessments. Failure to meet this obligation can have significant consequences, potentially leading to a declaration of total and permanent disability by operation of law, regardless of the actual degree of disability assessed by the company-designated physician. This decision underscores the need for transparency and fairness in handling seafarer disability claims, protecting the rights and welfare of Filipino seafarers.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the employer properly informed the seafarer of the medical assessment by the company-designated physician within the prescribed period, and the consequences of failing to do so.
    What is the 120/240-day rule? The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which a company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment. It begins from the time the seafarer reports to the company-designated physician.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to issue an assessment within the timeframe? If the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within 120 days without justification, or within 240 days with justification, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total by operation of law.
    Is referral to a third doctor mandatory in disability claims? Referral to a third doctor is mandatory only when the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician. This disagreement must be communicated to the employer.
    What is the employer’s responsibility regarding the medical assessment? The employer must ensure that the seafarer is fully informed of their medical condition, including examination results, treatments, diagnoses, and disability grading, as assessed by the company-designated physician.
    What is the consequence of failing to properly inform the seafarer? Failure to properly inform the seafarer can result in the seafarer’s disability being deemed total and permanent by operation of law, regardless of the actual disability grading.
    What benefits are seafarers entitled to for total and permanent disability? The benefits for total and permanent disability are determined by the POEA contract or the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), depending on the specific provisions and the circumstances of the case. In this case, the POEA Contract was applied which provides US$60,000.00.
    What if the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees with the company-designated physician? If the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees, the seafarer can request a referral to a third, neutral doctor. The decision of the third doctor is final and binding on both parties.

    This case highlights the importance of clear communication and adherence to procedural requirements in seafarer disability claims. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the employer’s responsibility to properly inform seafarers of their medical assessments ensures that seafarers are afforded due process and have the opportunity to protect their rights.

    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: ARNEL T. GERE v. ANGLO-EASTERN, G.R. No. 226656 & 226713, April 23, 2018

  • Work-Related Injury: Seafarer’s Claim Denied for Gym-Related Incident

    This case clarifies what constitutes a work-related injury for seafarers seeking disability benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of benefits to a casino dealer who claimed a back injury sustained on board was work-related but whose injury was traced to gym workout. The court emphasized that for an injury to be compensable, it must arise out of and in the course of employment, a link the seafarer failed to establish, and the court underscored the importance of proving a direct connection between the job duties and the injury sustained.

    Beyond the Casino: When Does a Seafarer’s Injury Qualify for Disability Benefits?

    Jose John C. Guerrero, a casino dealer, sought disability benefits from his employers, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and Celebrity Cruises, alleging a back injury sustained while assisting an elderly passenger. He claimed that sometime in January 2012, he and other crew members were instructed to assist elderly guests out of the ship using wheelchairs during a gastro-intestinal outbreak, but a sudden motion caused him to lose balance leading to back pains, an injury documented to be lumbar spondylosis. The employers countered that Guerrero’s injury occurred during a workout at the crew gym, an activity unrelated to his job duties. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Guerrero, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, a reversal that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Guerrero then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether Guerrero’s injury was work-related, thus entitling him to disability benefits under the POEA’s Amended Standard Terms and Conditions.

    The Supreme Court denied Guerrero’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and CA. The Court reiterated the principle that it is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive. Moreover, the Court emphasized that for disability to be compensable, two elements must concur: first, the injury or illness must be work-related; and second, the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.Work-related injury pertains to injury(ies) resulting in disability or death arising out of, and in the course of, employment, therefore, it becomes imperative to determine the origin or cause of the incident, as well as the time, place, and circumstances surrounding it.

    “For disability to be compensable, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.”

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, in this case Guerrero, to establish a causal connection between the nature of his employment and his injury. Guerrero failed to provide substantial evidence linking his work as a casino dealer to his lumbar disc injury. His claim of injury while assisting an elderly passenger lacked corroboration. On the other hand, the respondents presented Guerrero’s Crew Injury Statement admitting that his injury resulted from a gym workout. The document also indicated that the injury occurred during his break time. The Supreme Court considered the statement as a substantial evidence against the claim.

    “On JAN 22, I went to the gym to do my usual workout after that I felt pain on my lower back. I went to see a doctor on that day and gave me 24 hrs. to rest after that I go back to work, but everytime I bend, I felt something painful on my left buttock so I decided to see the doctor again on March 4 after that the pain keeps coming back ever since.”

    The Court noted the inconsistencies in Guerrero’s account of how the injury occurred. Initially, he claimed it was due to assisting a passenger, then later suggested the gym incident was an aggravating factor, and finally alleged a fall during the wheelchair incident. These inconsistencies undermined his credibility and weakened his claim. The Court found that Guerrero’s strenuous physical activity at the gym caused the injury, which was unrelated to his duties as a casino dealer. The Court thus supported the conclusion that Guerrero failed to prove work-causation of the injury.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that Guerrero’s arguments regarding the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a timely medical certificate and the opinion of his chosen physician were raised for the first time on appeal. Matters not alleged in the pleadings or raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal. The Court found Dr. Garcia’s assessment, declaring Guerrero unfit for sea service, unsupported by sufficient diagnostic tests and procedures. This assessment, based on a single consultation and lacking adequate justification, could not be taken at face value.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional policy of protecting labor should not be used to oppress employers. While committed to the cause of labor, the Court must also ensure justice is dispensed fairly, based on established facts, applicable laws, and prevailing jurisprudence. In this case, Guerrero’s failure to prove a work-related injury, coupled with inconsistencies in his claims, led to the denial of his petition, highlighting the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims for disability benefits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer’s back injury was work-related, thus entitling him to disability benefits under his employment contract. The Supreme Court ruled that the injury was not work-related since it resulted from his gym workout.
    What does “work-related injury” mean in this context? A work-related injury is one that arises out of and in the course of employment. This means there must be a causal connection between the nature of the seafarer’s work and the injury sustained.
    Who has the burden of proving that an injury is work-related? The seafarer claiming disability benefits has the burden of proving that their injury is work-related. They must present substantial evidence to support their claim.
    What kind of evidence is needed to prove a work-related injury? Substantial evidence, which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is required. This may include medical records, incident reports, and witness testimonies.
    What happens if a seafarer’s account of how the injury occurred is inconsistent? Inconsistent statements can undermine the seafarer’s credibility and weaken their claim for disability benefits. The court may view such inconsistencies as a lack of veracity.
    Can a seafarer raise new arguments on appeal that were not presented earlier? No, matters that were not alleged in the pleadings or raised during the initial proceedings cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This is barred by estoppel.
    What role does the company-designated physician play in determining disability? The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition and providing a medical assessment. Failure to issue a timely assessment can have legal implications.
    How does the court balance the protection of labor with the rights of employers? The court is committed to protecting labor but must also ensure fairness and justice for employers. Decisions are based on established facts, applicable laws, and jurisprudence, ensuring that both sides are treated equitably.

    In summary, this case highlights the importance of establishing a clear and direct link between a seafarer’s job duties and the injury sustained to qualify for disability benefits. Inconsistencies in the seafarer’s account and failure to provide substantial evidence can be detrimental to their claim.

    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: JOSE JOHN C. GUERRERO, VS. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., G.R. No. 222523, October 03, 2018

  • Mental Health at Sea: Employer Liability for Seafarer’s Bipolar Disorder

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Godinez underscores an employer’s responsibility for the mental health of its seafarers. The Court ruled that a seafarer’s bipolar disorder, triggered and exacerbated by harsh working conditions and maltreatment, is a compensable work-related illness. This ruling emphasizes the duty of employers to provide a safe and humane work environment, and it also serves as a reminder that employers can’t evade liability through fabricated evidence or by taking advantage of a worker’s vulnerability. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to seafarers under Philippine law, ensuring they receive due compensation and support when their mental health is compromised during their employment.

    From Dreams to Despair: When a Seafarer’s First Voyage Turns into a Mental Health Crisis

    Eduardo J. Godinez, a young man embarking on his first voyage as a Deck Cadet, found his dreams shattered by the harsh realities aboard the M/V Norviken. Hired by Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. for its foreign principal, Columbian Shipmanagement, Ltd., Godinez’s initial optimism quickly turned into a nightmare. The turning point came when he failed to wake up for his lookout duty, leading to severe maltreatment by his superior, Second Officer Antonio Dayo. What followed was a period of humiliation, verbal abuse, and psychological torment, culminating in a complete mental breakdown. The central legal question is: Can an employer be held liable for a seafarer’s mental illness when it is triggered and exacerbated by the harsh conditions and maltreatment experienced during employment?

    The case hinges on whether Godinez’s bipolar disorder could be considered a work-related illness. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Godinez, finding a clear connection between his working conditions and his mental breakdown. This decision was based on the premise that the harsh treatment he endured, coupled with the inherent stressors of seafaring, significantly contributed to the development of his condition. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this ruling, emphasizing that the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the presumption of work-relatedness. The Court of Appeals (CA) also sided with Godinez, highlighting the substantial evidence supporting the claim that his working conditions aggravated his illness.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both sides. One of the key issues was the employer’s claim that Godinez had fraudulently concealed a prior history of mental illness. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the unsigned medical report used as evidence was unreliable. It also emphasized that even if Godinez had failed to disclose this information, there was no proof that he had knowingly concealed it, a requirement under Section 20(E) of the POEA contract. Moreover, the court determined that the company had presented falsified and dubious pieces of evidence. As the court said:

    This Court notes mat Career, Columbian, and their counsel-of-record, have submitted documents of dubious nature and content; inadmissible in evidence and oppressive to the cause of labor; and condoned a licensed physician’s unethical and unprofessional conduct.

    Building on this principle, the Court addressed the nature and cause of Godinez’s illness. It highlighted the severe maltreatment he suffered under Second Officer Dayo, which included verbal abuse, humiliation, and denial of basic necessities. The Court found that the combination of these factors, coupled with the inherent stressors of seafaring, led to Godinez’s mental breakdown. The Court also criticized the employer’s lack of medical intervention and support, emphasizing that Godinez was treated inhumanely even as his condition deteriorated.

    Regarding the issue of whether Godinez had been declared fit to work, the Court rejected the employer’s claim that the unsigned March 12, 2004, Medical Progress Report served as proof. It emphasized that only a company-designated physician can provide a definite assessment of a seafarer’s fitness to work. The Court also dismissed the Certificate of Fitness for Work executed by Godinez, noting that he was not qualified to make such a determination and that it could not substitute for the legally required medical assessment.

    The Supreme Court also tackled the issue of damages and attorney’s fees. The Court agreed with the CA’s reduction of medical expenses due to insufficient documentation but upheld the award of moral and exemplary damages. It found that Career and Columbian had acted in evident malice and bad faith in dealing with Godinez and prosecuting their case. The Court pointed to the employer’s fabrication of evidence, unethical conduct, and attempt to evade liability as clear indicators of bad faith. As the court reasoned:

    It has become evident, without need of further elaboration, that in dealing with Godinez and in prosecuting their case, Career and Columbian acted in evident malice and bad faith thus entitling Godinez to an award of moral and exemplary damages.

    The implications of this ruling are significant for the maritime industry. The case underscores the importance of providing seafarers with a safe and humane working environment. Employers must take proactive steps to prevent maltreatment and harassment, and they must provide timely medical and psychological support to seafarers who experience mental health issues. Failure to do so can result in significant liability, including disability benefits, sickness allowance, medical expenses, and damages.

    This approach contrasts sharply with the employer’s attempts to evade responsibility by presenting fabricated evidence and taking advantage of Godinez’s vulnerability. The Court’s decision serves as a strong deterrent against such practices, reinforcing the protection afforded to seafarers under Philippine law. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in the maritime industry. Employers must act in good faith when dealing with their employees, and they must not attempt to evade their legal obligations through deception or manipulation.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer’s bipolar disorder, triggered and exacerbated by harsh working conditions and maltreatment, is a compensable work-related illness. The court also addressed the employer’s alleged fraudulent concealment and bad faith.
    What is the significance of Section 20(E) of the POEA contract? Section 20(E) of the POEA contract states that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a past medical condition is disqualified from receiving benefits. However, the Court found that this provision did not apply to Godinez because there was no proof that he had knowingly concealed his past history of mental illness.
    What evidence did the Court consider in determining that Godinez’s illness was work-related? The Court considered the severe maltreatment Godinez suffered under Second Officer Dayo, the inherent stressors of seafaring, and the employer’s lack of medical intervention and support. The Court also took into account the expert medical opinions and psychiatric evaluations presented by Godinez.
    Why did the Court reject the employer’s claim that Godinez had been declared fit to work? The Court rejected the employer’s claim because the unsigned March 12, 2004, Medical Progress Report was unreliable, and the Certificate of Fitness for Work executed by Godinez was not a substitute for a medical assessment by a qualified physician. Only a company-designated physician can provide a definite assessment of a seafarer’s fitness to work.
    What is the meaning of permanent total disability in the context of seafarer employment? Permanent total disability means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that she was trained for or accustomed to perform. It does not mean absolute helplessness, but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.
    Why was the employer ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages? The employer was ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages because it had acted in evident malice and bad faith in dealing with Godinez and prosecuting their case. The Court pointed to the employer’s fabrication of evidence, unethical conduct, and attempt to evade liability as clear indicators of bad faith.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician in cases of seafarer illness or injury? The company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or to determine the degree of disability within a period of 120 or 240 days from repatriation. The assessment must be provided by a qualified physician.
    What are the practical implications of this ruling for the maritime industry? The ruling underscores the importance of providing seafarers with a safe and humane working environment, including protection from maltreatment and access to timely medical and psychological support. Employers should promote open communication and a healthy company culture.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Godinez serves as a landmark ruling in the protection of seafarers’ mental health. It clarifies the responsibilities of employers to provide a safe and humane work environment and to ensure that seafarers receive due compensation and support when their mental health is compromised during their employment. The case also stands as a warning against underhanded tactics and attempts to evade liability.

    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: Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Godinez, G.R. Nos. 206826 & 206828, October 2, 2017

  • Seafarer Disability Claims: Strict Compliance with Post-Employment Medical Exam Rule

    The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of strict compliance with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement for seafarers claiming disability benefits. The Court emphasized that failure to adhere to this rule, as stipulated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, can bar a seafarer’s claim, regardless of whether the repatriation was medically necessitated or due to contract completion. This ruling ensures fairness and protects employers from unrelated disability claims filed after a significant lapse of time, where determining the true cause of an ailment becomes challenging. Moreover, the seafarer must present substantial evidence to prove that the illness was contracted during the term of employment, and that there is a reasonable causal connection between the ailment and the work for which they were contracted.

    Navigating the Seas of Employment: Did a Seafarer’s Ailment Arise from His Maritime Duties?

    In Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., Crown Shipmanagement Inc., and Victorio Q. Esta v. Wilfredo T. de Leon, the Supreme Court addressed the disability claim of Wilfredo T. de Leon, a seafarer who sought benefits for L5-S1 radiculopathy, a spinal nerve condition. De Leon had worked for Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. for 22 years. After completing his last nine-month contract in September 2005, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination for a new deployment. The company physician, noticing an issue with his leg, referred him to a neurologist. However, De Leon did not follow through and, two years later, filed a claim for disability benefits, alleging that he had developed the condition during his last voyage. The Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in favor of De Leon, awarding him USD 60,000 in disability benefits and attorney’s fees, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that De Leon failed to comply with critical requirements for claiming disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Central to the Court’s reasoning was De Leon’s failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within three working days of his repatriation. The Court cited Section 20(B) of the POEA Contract, outlining the requirements for compensability: the seafarer must submit to a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days upon return; the injury must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract; and the injury must be work-related. According to the Court, it is not disputed that De Leon failed to submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from disembarkation.

    The Court underscored the importance of this three-day rule, referencing InterOrient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III, where it was held that adherence to this rule allows physicians to more accurately determine the cause of an illness or injury.

    The rationale for the rule [on mandatory post-employment medical examination within three days from repatriation by a company-designated physician] is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgate to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant’s illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims.

    Because De Leon breached this requirement, the CA should have barred his claim for disability benefits.

    Beyond the procedural lapse, the Supreme Court also found that De Leon did not adequately prove that his radiculopathy developed during his employment. The Court noted that none of the tribunals a quo discussed any particular sickness that De Leon suffered while at sea, which was a factual question that should have been for the labor tribunals to resolve. Claimants for disability benefits must first discharge the burden of proving, with substantial evidence, that their ailment was acquired during the term of their contract. They must show that they experienced health problems while at sea, the circumstances under which they developed the illness, as well as the symptoms associated with it. The medical certifications and laboratory reports he presented were dated after his disembarkation and lacked specific details linking his condition to his work environment.

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating a reasonable causal connection between the seafarer’s ailment and the nature of their work. As the Supreme Court explained, logically, the labor courts must determine their actual work, the nature of their ailment, and other factors that may lead to the conclusion that they contracted a work-related injury. In this case, De Leon failed to specify the nature of his duties and the conditions that might have contributed to his radiculopathy. The Court criticized the CA’s reliance on the mere fact of De Leon’s 22-year employment as the primary causative factor, deeming it insufficient evidence. Moreover, the Court found fault with the CA’s use of a medical website to explain radiculopathy, emphasizing that the tribunals should have determined the duties of De Leon as a seafarer and the nature of his injury, so that they could validly draw a conclusion that he labored under conditions that would cause his purported permanent and total disability.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court clarified that the proximity of the ailment’s development to the time of disembarkation does not automatically establish work causation. In similar cases, the Court had made an effort to find out the recognized elements in resolving seafarers’ claims: the description of the work, the nature of the injury or illness contracted, and the connection between the two. Speculation alone is not enough to prove a work-related injury; conclusions must be based on real and apparent evidence. Therefore, the Court concluded that De Leon had not met the burden of proof required to substantiate his claim for disability benefits and that all the requirements for compensability were not met.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Wilfredo T. de Leon, was entitled to disability benefits for his L5-S1 radiculopathy, considering his failure to comply with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement and to provide sufficient evidence of a work-related injury.
    What is the three-day post-employment medical examination rule? This rule, stipulated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, requires seafarers claiming disability benefits to undergo a medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of their repatriation. It is intended to facilitate accurate diagnosis and prevent fraudulent claims.
    Why is the three-day rule so important? The rule ensures that the cause of the illness or injury can be accurately determined, and it protects employers from unrelated disability claims filed after a significant period, where the true cause of an ailment becomes difficult to ascertain.
    What kind of evidence is needed to prove an injury is work-related? Seafarers need to show they experienced health problems during their contract, describe the circumstances under which the illness developed, and present symptoms associated with it. Medical records and testimonies detailing the nature of their work and its connection to the injury are crucial.
    What does the POEA Standard Employment Contract say about disability benefits? The POEA Contract outlines the minimum rights of seafarers and obligations of employers, including requirements for disability compensation. Claimants must show that the injury existed during the contract term, is work-related, and that they complied with the post-employment medical examination rule.
    How does this case affect seafarers seeking disability benefits? This case reinforces the importance of complying with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement. It highlights that non-compliance can result in the denial of disability benefits, regardless of whether the seafarer’s repatriation was medically necessitated.
    Can the proximity of the illness to disembarkation automatically prove work causation? No, the Court clarified that the proximity of the ailment’s development to the time of disembarkation does not automatically establish work causation. There must be substantive evidence linking the illness to the seafarer’s work duties and conditions.
    What was the Supreme Court’s final decision in this case? The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, denying De Leon’s claim for disability benefits. The Court emphasized that he failed to comply with the three-day post-employment medical examination rule and did not provide sufficient evidence that his radiculopathy was work-related.

    This case serves as a critical reminder for seafarers to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements for claiming disability benefits. The ruling also underscores the necessity of presenting solid evidence to establish a causal link between the seafarer’s work and their medical condition. Compliance with these requirements is essential to ensure a fair and just resolution of disability 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: SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC. vs. DE LEON, G.R. No. 199977, January 25, 2017

  • Weighing Medical Opinions: Company Doctors vs. Private Physicians in Seafarer Disability Claims

    In disputes over seafarer disability benefits, the Supreme Court has clarified that the medical opinion of a physician who has closely and regularly monitored a seafarer’s health holds more weight than that of a doctor who only consulted with the seafarer once. This means that the assessments of company-designated physicians, who have the opportunity to conduct thorough and continuous evaluations, are generally favored over those of private doctors in determining a seafarer’s fitness for work and eligibility for disability benefits. The court emphasizes the importance of consistent medical observation and comprehensive testing in accurately assessing a seafarer’s condition.

    Navigating the Seas of Sickness: Whose Medical Opinion Prevails in a Seafarer’s Claim?

    The case of Pedro C. Perea v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. arose from a dispute over disability benefits claimed by Perea, a seafarer who experienced health issues, including chest pains and hypertension, during his employment. After being repatriated, he sought disability benefits, presenting a medical certificate from his private physician, Dr. Pascual, stating that he was unfit to work due to uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease. However, the company-designated physicians, Dr. Hao-Quan and Dr. Lim, after conducting extensive examinations, concluded that Perea was cleared of the medical conditions that led to his repatriation. This discrepancy in medical opinions led to a legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court, focusing on whose assessment should be given more credence.

    The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sided with the company-designated physicians, a decision that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The NLRC, however, introduced an issue not initially raised by either party: Perea’s alleged concealment of a pre-existing elbow injury. The Court of Appeals acknowledged this procedural misstep but maintained that the core reason for dismissing Perea’s claim was the lack of substantial evidence to support Dr. Pascual’s assessment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ overall ruling but emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, stating that the NLRC should have limited its review to the specific issues raised on appeal. Rule VI, Section 4(d) of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, states:

    Section 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. –

    d) Subject to the provisions of Article 218 of the Labor Code, once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were elevated on appeal.

    The Supreme Court then addressed the central question of which medical opinion should prevail. The Court highlighted that for an illness to be compensable under the POEA Contract, it must be work-related and contracted during the term of the seafarer’s employment. The POEA Contract defines work-related illness as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.” Relevant portions of Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract read:

    Section 32-A. Occupational Diseases. —

    For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

    (1) The seafarer’s work must involve the risks described herein;

    (2) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;

    (3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;

    (4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the company-designated physician’s assessment in determining a seafarer’s fitness for work. The Court acknowledged that while Perea was treated for injuries and hypertension during his contract, the company-designated physicians, Dr. Hao-Quan and Dr. Lim, conducted extensive examinations, including a coronary angiography. The Court emphasized that these doctors were able to monitor Perea’s condition over a prolonged period. The results of the coronary angiography, conducted on July 29, 2010 were as follows:

    Coronary Arteriography:

    LCA:

    LM appears normal and it bifurcates into the LAD and LCx arteries.

    LAD is a good-sized, Type III vessel which appears normal throughout its course. The diagonal branches are free of disease.

    LCx is a good-sized, non-dominant vessel which appears normal. The OM branches are likewise free of disease.

    RCA
    is a good-sized dominant vessel with a 40-50% discrete stenosis at its mid vertical limb. The rest of the vessel appears normal.

    CONCLUSION:

    Insignificant Coronary Artery Disease

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Optimal Medical Management
    Aggressive Risk Factor Modification

    The court cited Philman Marine v. Cabanban, emphasizing that a doctor with personal knowledge of the seafarer’s medical condition, who has closely and regularly monitored and treated the illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability. This principle underscores the importance of continuous medical observation and comprehensive testing in accurately determining a seafarer’s fitness for work.

    Perea’s claim for sickness allowance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement was also denied because the agreement’s effectivity had already lapsed when he experienced chest pains. Additionally, his prayer for moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages was rejected because the respondents were not remiss in their obligation to provide him with adequate medical attention, both on board the vessel and in a foreign port. The court found that the respondents complied with the POEA Contract, including the payment of wages and sickness allowance, which negated any basis for awarding damages.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was determining whose medical opinion should prevail in assessing a seafarer’s disability claim: the company-designated physician who conducted extensive examinations or the private physician who provided a single consultation.
    Why did the Supreme Court favor the company-designated physician’s opinion? The Supreme Court favored the company-designated physician’s opinion because they had the opportunity to monitor the seafarer’s condition over a prolonged period and conducted extensive medical tests. This continuous observation and comprehensive testing were deemed more reliable.
    What is the POEA Contract? The POEA Contract refers to the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels, issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. It outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
    Under what conditions is hypertension considered compensable for seafarers? Under the POEA Contract, hypertension is considered compensable if it causes impairment of functions of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability. This must be substantiated with specific medical documents like chest x-ray, ECG, and CT scan reports.
    What is the significance of Section 32-A of the POEA Contract? Section 32-A of the POEA Contract lists occupational diseases that are considered compensable for seafarers, provided that certain conditions are met. These conditions include the seafarer’s work involving the described risks and the disease being contracted as a result of exposure to those risks.
    What happens if a seafarer’s private doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment? The POEA Contract provides that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
    Was the seafarer entitled to damages in this case? No, the seafarer was not entitled to damages because the respondents complied with the POEA Contract by providing adequate medical attention and paying his wages and sickness allowance. There was no evidence of negligence or bad faith on the part of the employer.
    What was the procedural error committed by the NLRC in this case? The NLRC committed a procedural error by considering the issue of the seafarer’s alleged concealment of a pre-existing elbow injury, which was not raised by either party before the Labor Arbiter or in the appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that the NLRC should limit its review to the specific issues elevated on appeal.

    This case underscores the importance of thorough and continuous medical evaluation by company-designated physicians in assessing seafarers’ disability claims. It also highlights the need for adherence to procedural rules in labor disputes, ensuring fairness and due process for all parties involved.

    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: PEDRO C. PEREA, VS. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA ATLANTICA SRL/ITALY, AND CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO, G.R. No. 206178, August 09, 2017