In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the rights of Filipino seafarers, reinforcing that illnesses suffered during their employment are presumed work-related and compensable. This ruling underscores the duty of employers to provide comprehensive support and compensation for seafarers whose health is compromised while fulfilling their duties. By upholding this presumption, the Court ensures that seafarers receive the protection and benefits they rightfully deserve, promoting their welfare and recognizing the inherent risks associated with their profession. This decision serves as a critical safeguard, reinforcing the POEA’s mandate to secure the best terms of employment and protect the well-being of Filipino contract workers, ensuring they are not unduly burdened when illness strikes during their service at sea.

When Aortic Dissection at Sea Leads to a Battle Over Seafarer’s Rights

This case revolves around Andres G. Gazzingan, a seafarer who experienced chest pains while working aboard a vessel and was later diagnosed with aortic dissection. The central legal question is whether Gazzingan’s illness was work-related and thus compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), despite the employer’s claim that it was a pre-existing condition. The resolution of this issue hinges on the interpretation and application of the presumption of work-relatedness in maritime employment contracts.

The narrative begins with Gazzingan’s hiring by Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. as a messman. Prior to his deployment, a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) revealed a left ventricular hypertrophy, yet he was still declared fit for sea duty. While serving on the M/V Gloria, Gazzingan suffered chest pains, leading to a diagnosis of Acute Type-B Dissection at a hospital in Colombia. He was medically repatriated to the Philippines, where the company-designated physician declared his condition non-work-related.

This declaration became the crux of the dispute. Gazzingan, disputing the physician’s assessment, filed a complaint for disability benefits and medical expenses, arguing that his strenuous work as a messman contributed to his condition. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in his favor, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, siding with the company-designated physician. Upon Gazzingan’s death, his heirs pursued the case, eventually leading to the Court of Appeals (CA), which overturned the NLRC ruling and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

The heart of the legal discussion lies in the interpretation of Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC, which outlines the liabilities of the employer when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness. This section stipulates that for an illness to be compensable, it must be work-related and have occurred during the term of the employment contract. The POEA-SEC defines a work-related illness as one resulting in disability or death due to an occupational disease, with specific conditions to be satisfied. However, illnesses not listed as occupational diseases are presumed to be work-related.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Gazzingan’s illness, aortic dissection, manifested during his employment. The court acknowledged the causal connection between his strenuous duties as a messman and the physical stress that contributed to his condition. Even with a pre-existing condition, the court noted that Gazzingan’s work conditions aggravated his illness. This reasoning aligns with established jurisprudence stating that a reasonable link between the disease and the seafarer’s work is sufficient to establish compensability, even if there is no direct causal relation.

A critical point of contention was the weight given to the company-designated physician’s opinion. While the POEA-SEC mandates that the company-designated physician assess the seafarer’s disability, the Court clarified that their assessment is not conclusive. The Court considered Dr. Banaga’s opinion as inconclusive because it was based merely on Gazzingan’s PEME, without considering the post-employment medical examination. The Court highlighted that a PEME is not exploratory and cannot be relied upon to determine a seafarer’s true state of health, citing Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc., G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011.

“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 permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.”

The Court further noted that the company-designated physician hastily concluded that aortic dissection is hereditary without considering other factors. The burden of proof then shifted to the employer to overcome the presumption of work-relatedness, a burden the petitioners failed to discharge. The Court has consistently held that the opinion of the company-designated physician is not binding if it is unsubstantiated by thorough medical findings or if the physician did not personally attend to the seafarer’s treatment.

Considering Gazzingan’s inability to work after his diagnosis and until his death, the Supreme Court determined that he suffered from permanent total disability. The Court adjusted the disability benefits to US$60,000.00, aligning with the Schedule of Disability Allowances under the POEA-SEC, which mandates a 120% increase for total and permanent disability from the initial amount. The Court upheld the award of sickness allowance and attorney’s fees, as Gazzingan’s heirs were compelled to litigate to secure his rightful benefits, which is sanctioned under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial protection for Filipino seafarers. This reaffirms the significance of the presumption of work-relatedness and ensuring fair compensation and support when they fall ill while serving at sea. This case underscores the need for employers to conduct thorough medical assessments and provide comprehensive care, recognizing the inherent risks associated with maritime employment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Andres Gazzingan’s aortic dissection was work-related, entitling him to disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, despite the company’s claim that it was a pre-existing condition. The case centered on the interpretation and application of the presumption of work-relatedness for illnesses suffered by seafarers during their employment.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) sets the terms and conditions for Filipino seafarers working on foreign vessels. It defines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer, including provisions for compensation in case of work-related injuries or illnesses.
What does it mean for an illness to be “work-related” under the POEA-SEC?	Under the POEA-SEC, a work-related illness is one that results in disability or death due to an occupational disease, or one that is presumed to have been caused or aggravated by the seafarer’s working conditions. The seafarer’s work must involve risks, the disease must be contracted as a result, and there should be no notorious negligence on the seafarer’s part.
What is the role of the company-designated physician?	The company-designated physician is tasked with assessing the seafarer’s disability upon repatriation. While their assessment is considered, it is not conclusive and can be challenged if it is not supported by thorough medical findings or if the physician did not personally attend to the seafarer’s treatment.
What is the presumption of work-relatedness?	The presumption of work-relatedness means that illnesses not explicitly listed as occupational diseases under the POEA-SEC are presumed to have been caused or aggravated by the seafarer’s work conditions. This shifts the burden of proof to the employer to demonstrate that the illness is not work-related.
How did the Court determine that Gazzingan’s illness was work-related?	The Court considered that Gazzingan’s symptoms manifested during his employment, his duties as a messman involved physical stress, and there was a reasonable link between his work conditions and the aggravation of his condition. The Court was not persuaded by the argument that pre-existing conditions were the sole cause of the disease.
Why was the company-designated physician’s opinion deemed inconclusive?	The company-designated physician’s opinion was deemed inconclusive because it was based solely on Gazzingan’s pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and did not consider his post-repatriation condition. Also, the doctor did not consider other risk factors related to the illness, and his evaluation appeared hasty.
What is the significance of permanent total disability?	Permanent total disability refers to a condition where the seafarer is unable to return to their regular job for more than 120 days. In this case, Gazzingan’s inability to work after his diagnosis led the Court to conclude that he suffered from permanent total disability, entitling him to higher compensation.
What benefits are seafarers entitled to if they suffer a work-related illness?	If a seafarer suffers a work-related illness, they are entitled to sickness allowance, disability benefits (depending on the degree of disability), and reimbursement of medical expenses. In this case, Gazzingan’s heirs were awarded permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ordering Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. to pay Gazzingan’s heirs total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees. The Court emphasized that Gazzingan’s illness was presumed work-related and the company failed to overcome this presumption.

This case illustrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of Filipino seafarers, ensuring they receive just compensation and support when their health is compromised during their service. By reinforcing the presumption of work-relatedness and scrutinizing the assessments of company-designated physicians, the Court safeguards the welfare of seafarers and promotes fairness in maritime employment.

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: Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. Heirs of Andres G. Gazzingan, G.R. No. 199568, June 17, 2015