The Supreme Court ruled that employers must fulfill their obligations to provide medical treatment and pay sickness allowances to seafarers promptly. Failure to do so cannot be used as a justification to deny disability benefits if the seafarer misses medical appointments due to the employer’s inaction. This decision reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

When Duty Calls: The High Court Protects Seafarers from Employer Neglect

Christian Albert A. Cariño, a seafarer, suffered an injury while working on board a vessel owned by Maine Marine Phils., Inc. Following his repatriation, a dispute arose when Maine Marine allegedly failed to provide continuous medical treatment and sickness allowance. Cariño’s subsequent failure to attend a scheduled medical appointment was used by the company as grounds to deny his disability benefits. The core legal question was whether the employer’s failure to uphold its medical obligations could justify the denial of benefits to the seafarer.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the POEA-SEC is imbued with public interest and must be construed liberally in favor of seafarers. The court highlighted the interconnected duties of both the seafarer and the employer. While the seafarer must attend medical appointments, the employer is obligated to provide medical treatment and sickness allowance.

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

1. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. 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 he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.
2. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.

The Court noted Cariño’s diligent efforts to follow up on his medical treatment, contrasting it with Maine Marine’s inaction. The Court noted that even if the company-designated physician scheduled a check-up, Cariño’s failure to attend was not due to abandonment. It was the lack of approved medical procedures and unpaid allowance which was in violation of the POEA-SEC. The Court cited a previous ruling:

Accordingly, Section 20-B (2), paragraph 2, of the POEA-SEC imposes on the employer the liability to provide, at its cost, for the medical treatment of the repatriated seafarer for the illness or injury that he suffered on board the vessel until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of his disability is finally determined by the company-designated physician.

Because the employer’s breach of duty led to Cariño’s absence, the Supreme Court deemed the company-designated physician’s failure to assess Cariño within 120 days as unjustified, resulting in a total and permanent disability. The Court, in effect, penalized Maine Marine for failing to act. The Court reiterated that when the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of the CBA. The Court emphasized that labor officials should employ reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively, with little resort to technicalities, and that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the CBA submitted by Cariño, as his employment contract clearly stated its applicability. The Supreme Court held that the lower court should have considered the CBA, especially since Cariño’s employment contract clearly stated that he was covered by the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA. In essence, the Court allowed the seafarer to receive benefits under the CBA because the contract which the company signed clearly states that Cariño is covered by the CBA.

The Court, referencing the CBA, declared that Cariño was entitled to US$93,154.00 as a permanent and total disability benefit. The court also agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s award of moral and exemplary damages, increasing them to P100,000.00 each due to Maine Marine’s callous treatment.

The Court reiterated that companies like Maine Marine should comply with their contractual obligations and avoid giving seafarers the run-around. The Court awarded attorney’s fees at ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards, citing Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. Lastly, the Supreme Court stated that Maine Marine is liable for legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.

In its final ruling, the Court highlighted the joint and several liability of respondents for the monetary awards, following Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. By reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Supreme Court prioritized the protection of seafarers’ rights and underscored the importance of employers fulfilling their contractual obligations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer could be denied disability benefits for missing a medical appointment when the employer failed to provide the required medical treatment and sickness allowance.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that employers must fulfill their obligations to provide medical treatment and pay sickness allowances promptly, and failure to do so cannot justify the denial of disability benefits.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC, or Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, sets the terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels.
What is a CBA?	A CBA, or Collective Bargaining Agreement, is a negotiated agreement between an employer and a labor union representing the employees, outlining terms and conditions of employment.
What is sickness allowance?	Sickness allowance is a benefit provided to seafarers who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses, equivalent to their basic wage, until they are declared fit to work or their disability is assessed.
Why was the CBA important in this case?	The CBA provided for a higher disability benefit amount than the standard POEA-SEC, and the Court ruled that the seafarer was entitled to the CBA benefits because his employment contract stated he was covered by it.
What damages were awarded in this case?	In addition to disability benefits and sickness allowance, the seafarer was awarded moral damages (P100,000.00) and exemplary damages (P100,000.00) due to the employer’s bad faith.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights by ensuring that employers fulfill their obligations and cannot use their own failures as a reason to deny benefits.
What is the legal interest imposed in this case?	Respondents are likewise liable for legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum of the foregoing monetary awards computed from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.

This decision serves as a reminder to employers in the maritime industry of their duty to prioritize the welfare of their seafarers by promptly addressing their medical needs and providing timely financial support. By upholding these obligations, employers can foster a healthier and more equitable working environment for Filipino seafarers.

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: CHRISTIAN ALBERT A. CARIÑO v. MAINE MARINE PHILS., INC., G.R. No. 231111, October 17, 2018