ASG Law

Tag: Disability Benefits

  • Premature Filing: Seafarer’s Disability Claim Dismissed for Non-Compliance with POEA-SEC Procedures

    In Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits was prematurely filed because it was initiated before the company-designated physician could fully assess the seafarer’s condition within the allowable 240-day period. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) regarding disability claims, especially concerning the timeline for medical assessments and the process for contesting medical opinions. The ruling clarifies the circumstances under which a seafarer can claim disability benefits, emphasizing the primacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment within the prescribed period and the mandatory procedure for seeking a third doctor’s opinion when disagreements arise.

    When Timing is Everything: Did the Seafarer Jump the Gun on His Disability Claim?

    The case revolves around Celestino M. Hernandez, Jr., a seafarer employed by Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. He experienced pain during his employment and was medically repatriated. Upon his return, he was examined by the company-designated physician and underwent surgery. Dissatisfied with the progress, Hernandez filed a claim for permanent disability benefits before the company-designated physician could issue a final assessment. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in favor of Hernandez, awarding him disability benefits and attorney’s fees, but the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, highlighting the premature filing of the claim and the failure to follow the mandatory procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC.

    The central legal question in this case is whether Hernandez prematurely filed his claim for disability benefits and whether his non-compliance with the POEA-SEC procedures warranted the dismissal of his claim. The petitioners argued that Hernandez’s complaint was premature because the company-designated physician had not yet issued a final disability assessment within the allowable 240-day period, and Hernandez failed to seek a third doctor’s opinion to resolve conflicting medical assessments. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the timelines and procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC. The court’s analysis hinged on interpreting Section 20B(3) of the POEA-SEC, which governs the process for assessing a seafarer’s disability and resolving disputes regarding medical assessments.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the 120-day and 240-day rules in disability claims, referencing the landmark case of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., which clarified the application of these timelines. The court explained that the 120-day period provided under Section 20B(3) of the POEA-SEC is the period given to the employer to determine the seafarer’s fitness to work. This period may be extended up to 240 days if the seafarer requires further medical treatment. Furthermore, a total and temporary disability becomes permanent when declared by the company-designated physician within 120 or 240 days, or upon the expiration of these periods without a declaration of fitness to work or disability assessment.

    The Court outlined specific conditions under which a seafarer may pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits, as established in C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok. These conditions include situations where the company-designated physician fails to issue a declaration within the prescribed period, the 240-day period lapses without any certification, conflicting medical opinions arise, or the company-designated physician’s assessment is disputed. Here, Hernandez filed his complaint before a definite assessment was made and before the 240-day period had lapsed, rendering his claim premature.

    The decision further elaborates on the seafarer’s obligation to follow the procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC when contesting the company-designated physician’s findings. Section 20B(3) of the POEA-SEC mandates that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. The failure to comply with this procedure is a ground for denying the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits. In Hernandez’s case, he sought an opinion from his own physician, Dr. Pascual, without waiting for a definite assessment from the company-designated physician, thus failing to comply with the required procedure.

    The Court also addressed the issue of conflicting medical opinions, highlighting the importance of the company-designated physician’s assessment and the proper procedure for contesting it. The Court emphasized that the POEA-SEC designates the company-designated physician as the primary authority for assessing a seafarer’s disability. If the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the POEA-SEC provides a specific mechanism for resolving the dispute, which involves seeking the opinion of a third, independent physician agreed upon by both parties. Hernandez failed to follow this procedure, further undermining his claim for disability benefits.

    The Supreme Court contrasted this case with Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, clarifying the applicability of the 120-day and 240-day rules based on the date the maritime complaint was filed. If the complaint was filed prior to October 6, 2008, the 120-day rule applies, whereas if the complaint was filed from October 6, 2008 onwards, the 240-day rule applies. Because Hernandez filed his complaint on July 20, 2010, the 240-day rule applied, further supporting the conclusion that his claim was premature.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Hernandez reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC when filing disability claims. The decision serves as a reminder to seafarers and employers alike to follow the established timelines and procedures for medical assessments and dispute resolution. By failing to comply with these requirements, Hernandez’s claim was deemed premature, and his complaint was dismissed. This ruling provides clear guidance on the proper handling of disability claims in the maritime industry and underscores the need for strict adherence to the POEA-SEC guidelines.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Celestino Hernandez, prematurely filed his claim for disability benefits by not waiting for the company-designated physician’s final assessment within the allowable period and not complying with the POEA-SEC procedure for seeking a third doctor’s opinion.
    What is the significance of the 120-day and 240-day rules? The 120-day rule refers to the initial period for the company-designated physician to assess the seafarer’s condition, which can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is required. A disability claim can only be considered permanent and total if no assessment is made within these periods or if the company-designated physician declares it to be so.
    What is the proper procedure for contesting the company-designated physician’s findings? If the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the seafarer must request a third, independent doctor jointly agreed upon by both the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision is final and binding.
    Why was Hernandez’s claim dismissed? Hernandez’s claim was dismissed because he filed the complaint before the company-designated physician could make a final assessment within the 240-day period and he did not follow the procedure of consulting a third doctor to contest the company-designated physician’s findings.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The POEA-SEC stands for the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract. It is a standard employment contract for seafarers that outlines the terms and conditions of their employment, including provisions for disability benefits.
    What was Dr. Pascual’s role in this case? Dr. Pascual was Hernandez’s personal physician, whose opinion was submitted to support the disability claim. However, because Hernandez did not follow the proper procedure, the court gave more weight to the assessment of the company-designated physician.
    How does this case affect future disability claims for seafarers? This case underscores the importance of strictly adhering to the timelines and procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC when filing disability claims. Seafarers must allow the company-designated physician to conduct a full assessment within the prescribed period and follow the proper procedure for contesting any unfavorable findings.
    What was the court’s final ruling? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed Celestino M. Hernandez, Jr.’s complaint.

    The Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Hernandez case serves as a crucial reminder of the procedural requirements that must be met when filing disability claims for seafarers. By emphasizing the primacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment and the need to follow the POEA-SEC’s prescribed procedures, the Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance for both seafarers and employers in navigating the complexities of maritime 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. CELESTINO M. HERNANDEZ, JR., G.R. No. 211187, April 16, 2018

  • Seafarer’s Rights: Establishing Work-Related Illness for Disability Benefits

    In Magat v. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a seafarer’s cardiovascular disease was work-related, entitling him to disability benefits. The Court emphasized that even a small degree of contribution from the seafarer’s work environment to the development or aggravation of the illness is sufficient to establish compensability. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to seafarers under Philippine law, ensuring they receive adequate compensation for illnesses contracted or aggravated during their employment.

    From the Pump Room to the Heart: Can a Seafarer Claim Disability for Illness Developed at Sea?

    Alfredo Mallari Magat, an Able Seaman, filed a claim for disability benefits against Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., alleging he developed cardiovascular disease due to his work conditions. Magat worked for the company on various vessels since 2007. In May 2011, he was assigned to MT North Star. He claimed that while painting the ship’s pump room, the poor ventilation caused him to inhale harmful chemicals, leading to shortness of breath and chest pains. Upon repatriation, he sought medical examination, which revealed hypertension and dilated cardiomyopathy. The core legal question revolved around whether Magat’s heart condition was work-related and thus compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

    The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in Magat’s favor, granting him disability benefits. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, stating that Magat failed to sufficiently prove his illness was contracted aboard the M/T North Star. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to determine whether the illness was indeed work-related and whether the requirements for compensability under the POEA-SEC were met. The Court emphasized that its power to review factual findings of lower tribunals is expanded in cases involving conflicting conclusions, such as this one, requiring a closer examination of the evidence presented.

    For a disability to be compensable under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, two key elements must concur: the injury or illness must be work-related; and the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. The POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury as one resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment, and a work-related illness as any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. For illnesses not listed under Section 32-A, a **disputable presumption** is created in favor of the seafarer, suggesting these illnesses are work-related.

    However, the Supreme Court has clarified that, based on due process, the claimant-seafarer must still provide **substantial evidence** that their work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. Awards of compensation cannot be based solely on bare assertions and presumptions. Instead, reasonable proof of a work connection is needed, requiring a probability, rather than absolute certainty. The Court noted that the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter correctly determined that Magat’s illness was compensable, as it was connected to his work environment.

    The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC considered Magat’s exposure to harmful chemicals and the stressful nature of his work, and concluded that his working conditions had, at least to a small degree, contributed to the development of his cardiovascular disease. The Labor Arbiter stated:

    Indeed, as Able bodied Seaman at MT North Star, complainant was exposed to constant inhalation of hydrocarbons including residues and vapors of paints and paint thinners during their painting jobs especially when he painted the confined areas of the vessel. Paints contain toxic chemicals like lead and benzene which if inhaled would cause health problems including cardiovascular diseases.

    Building on this principle, the NLRC highlighted that Magat’s case fell under Section 32-A, 11(c) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which addresses situations where a person, seemingly asymptomatic before work-related strain, shows cardiac injury symptoms during work that persist. The Commission further added:

    If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim causal relationship.

    The NLRC also noted that Magat was discovered to have a heart disease only four months after his repatriation, suggesting that the disease developed during his employment. They emphasized that because Magat had passed his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) without any indication of a pre-existing heart ailment, the illness likely developed while he was on board the vessel. The Court underscored that the CA’s decision, which dismissed the NLRC’s ruling, overlooked these critical points. While there might not have been explicit documentation pinpointing when Magat contracted the illness, the totality of the evidence suggested a clear link between his work and his condition.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of post-employment medical examination. The CA had noted that Magat failed to submit himself to a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three days of his arrival in the Philippines. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the seafarer is obliged to be present for the post-employment medical examination, the employer has a reciprocal obligation to conduct a meaningful and timely examination. The court emphasized that if the employer fails to provide the necessary referral, the seafarer’s right to seek a second medical opinion and consult a physician of their choice is recognized. As explicitly stated in Sec. 20 (B), Paragraph (3) of the POEA-SEC:

    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.

    The Court, therefore, affirmed the compensability of Magat’s permanent disability and justified the award of US$60,000.00, equivalent to 120% of US$50,000.00, as the appropriate disability allowance under Section 32 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The grant of attorney’s fees was also affirmed, as justified under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, considering Magat was compelled to litigate to satisfy his claim for disability benefits. The Supreme Court thereby reinforced the rights of seafarers and reiterated the importance of providing adequate compensation for work-related illnesses.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Alfredo Magat’s cardiovascular disease was work-related and, therefore, compensable under the POEA-SEC. The Supreme Court examined if his working conditions as an Able Seaman contributed to the development or aggravation of his illness.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) sets the terms and conditions of employment for Filipino seafarers. It includes provisions for compensation and benefits in case of work-related injuries or illnesses.
    What does ‘work-related illness’ mean under the POEA-SEC? Under the POEA-SEC, a work-related illness is any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the contract. For illnesses not listed, a disputable presumption is created, suggesting they are work-related if proven that work conditions increased the risk.
    What is the significance of the PEME in this case? The Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) is crucial because it establishes the seafarer’s health condition before deployment. In this case, Magat’s passing of the PEME without any indication of heart problems suggested that his condition developed during his employment.
    What is the 3-day reporting requirement for seafarers? The 3-day reporting requirement mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of arrival in the Philippines. Failure to comply may result in the forfeiture of certain benefits, like sickness allowance.
    What if a seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company physician? If a seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor can be jointly agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision is then considered final and binding on both parties.
    What evidence did Magat present to support his claim? Magat presented evidence of his exposure to harmful chemicals while working in poorly ventilated areas on the ship, his medical evaluations indicating cardiovascular disease, and his employment history. He also highlighted the absence of any pre-existing heart condition prior to his last employment.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Magat, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the NLRC’s decision. It affirmed that his cardiovascular disease was work-related and that he was entitled to disability benefits and attorney’s fees.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Magat v. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. serves as a crucial reminder of the protections afforded to seafarers under Philippine law. By emphasizing that even a small degree of work-related contribution to an illness is sufficient for compensability, the Court has strengthened the safety net for these essential workers, affirming their right to just compensation for health issues developed or aggravated during their demanding service at sea.

    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: Alfredo Mallari Magat, vs. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 232892, April 04, 2018

  • Protecting Seafarers: Timely Disability Assessments and Employer Responsibilities in Maritime Law

    The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits when the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely and justified medical assessment within the prescribed periods. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the mandated timelines for medical evaluations in maritime employment contracts. It clarifies that employers bear the responsibility to ensure that medical assessments are conducted promptly and that any extensions are justified by sufficient evidence. This ruling protects seafarers by ensuring they receive due compensation when their ability to work is compromised due to work-related injuries or illnesses.

    Deadlines Matter: How a Seafarer’s Injury Led to a Landmark Decision on Disability Benefits

    This case revolves around Donard P. Silvestre, an ordinary seaman, who sustained a head injury while working on board a vessel. The central legal question is whether his employer, Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., fulfilled its obligations regarding the timely assessment of his disability and entitlement to benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The dispute highlights the critical importance of adhering to established timelines and providing sufficient justification for any extensions in medical assessments for seafarers.

    The factual backdrop involves Silvestre’s injury on May 6, 2011, when he was struck in the head by a closing hatch cover. After receiving initial treatment, he was repatriated to the Philippines on May 19, 2011, and underwent medical evaluations by the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz. Despite undergoing treatment, Silvestre continued to experience pain and headaches, leading him to seek additional medical opinions. Dr. Ramon Carlos Miguel L. Alemany issued a Neurological Evaluation stating that Silvestre was no longer fit for sea duty, while Dr. Renato P. Runas assessed him with a Grade 9 permanent disability under the POEA contract.

    The legal framework governing this case is primarily the 2000 POEA-SEC, which outlines the rights and obligations of both the employer and the seafarer in cases of work-related injury or illness. Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC specifies the employer’s liabilities, including providing medical treatment and sickness allowance until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of disability is established. This section is particularly crucial in determining the timeliness and adequacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment.

    Initially, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Silvestre’s complaint, a decision that was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Both tribunals based their decisions on the Crew Member Accident Report, suggesting that Silvestre’s injury resulted from his failure to observe safety procedures. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these rulings, finding that Silvestre’s injury was work-related and that he was entitled to disability benefits due to the company-designated physician’s failure to provide a timely assessment.

    The Supreme Court sided with the CA, emphasizing that the employer bears the burden of proving that the seafarer’s injury resulted from a willful act or intentional breach of duty. The Court noted that the accident report alone did not substantiate such a claim. Moreover, the Court underscored the importance of the company-designated physician issuing a final medical assessment within 120 days, or providing sufficient justification for extending this period up to 240 days, in line with established jurisprudence like Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc., et al v. Quiogue, which states:

    Certainly, the company-designated physician must perform some significant act before he can invoke the exceptional 240-day period under the IRR. It is only fitting that the company-designated physician must provide a sufficient justification to extend the original 120-day period. Otherwise, under the law, the seafarer must be granted the relief of permanent and total disability benefits due to such non-compliance.

    The Court found that the company-designated physician failed to provide a timely assessment or justify any extension, leading to the conclusion that Silvestre was entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The Court also addressed the issue of sickness allowance, adjusting the amount based on presented evidence of partial payment. The Court highlighted the significance of timely medical assessments by the company-designated physician, referencing Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias:

    1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
    2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;
    3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
    4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    In analyzing the timeliness of the assessment, the Court noted that while Silvestre was repatriated on May 19, 2011, the company-designated physician’s assessment declaring him fit to work was issued on November 23, 2011, well beyond the initial 120-day period. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient justification provided for extending the assessment period, thus solidifying the seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits.

    The Court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to Silvestre, citing Article 2208 of the Civil Code, which allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws. The ruling reinforces the protection afforded to seafarers under Philippine law, ensuring that they receive just compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses, particularly when employers fail to meet their obligations regarding timely medical assessments. The decision has significant implications for maritime employers, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the POEA-SEC and relevant jurisprudence regarding medical assessments and disability benefits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to permanent total disability benefits due to the company-designated physician’s failure to provide a timely and justified medical assessment.
    What is the significance of the 120-day period? The company-designated physician is generally required to issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability within 120 days from the time the seafarer reported for treatment. Failure to do so without justification can result in the seafarer’s disability being considered permanent and total.
    Under what conditions can the 120-day period be extended? The period can be extended to 240 days if the company-designated physician provides sufficient justification, such as when the seafarer requires further medical treatment or is uncooperative. The employer bears the burden of proving the justification.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within the extended period? If the company-designated physician still fails to provide an assessment within the extended 240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is considered permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
    Who has the burden of proof in cases involving disability claims? The employer has the burden of proving that the seafarer’s injury resulted from a willful act or intentional breach of duty to avoid liability for disability benefits.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) outlines the terms and conditions of employment for Filipino seafarers, including provisions for medical care and disability benefits.
    What is considered a permanent total disability for a seafarer? A permanent total disability refers to the inability of a seafarer to perform their usual sea duties for more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for further medical treatment, as determined by the company-designated physician.
    Why were attorney’s fees awarded in this case? Attorney’s fees were awarded because the case involved an action for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws, as provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Silvestre serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to the timelines and requirements set forth in the POEA-SEC regarding medical assessments for seafarers. Employers must ensure that company-designated physicians provide timely and justified assessments to avoid liability for permanent total disability benefits. This ruling reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights and emphasizes the employer’s responsibility to comply with established legal standards.

    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. vs. DONARD P. SILVESTRE, G.R. No. 213465, January 08, 2018

  • Pre-Existing Conditions vs. Non-Disclosure: Protecting Seafarers’ Rights to Disability Benefits

    The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s failure to disclose a prior medical procedure (stenting) during a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) does not automatically disqualify them from receiving disability benefits if the employer was already aware of the underlying illness. This decision protects seafarers by preventing employers from denying benefits based on technicalities when the core health condition was previously known. It emphasizes the importance of transparency on both sides and ensures that seafarers are not penalized for non-disclosure of procedures related to known pre-existing conditions.

    Sailing Through Disclosure: When Does a Seafarer’s Medical History Affect Disability Claims?

    Almario F. Leoncio, a seafarer, sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision which denied his claim for permanent total disability benefits. Leoncio had a history of working for MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc. and Thome Ship Management Pte. Ltd. Since 2001, the company was aware of his Coronary Artery Disease/Hypertensive Cardio-Vascular Disease (CAD/HCVD). However, after undergoing a stenting procedure in 2009, he did not disclose this during his pre-employment medical examination (PEME) in 2014. This omission led to the denial of his disability claims when he experienced further heart problems during a subsequent voyage. The core legal question was whether Leoncio’s non-disclosure of the stenting procedure constituted a fraudulent misrepresentation that would bar his claim for total disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.

    The Supreme Court granted Leoncio’s petition, emphasizing that the non-disclosure of a medical procedure related to a pre-existing condition already known to the employer does not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court referenced Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which states that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits. However, the Court interpreted “illness or condition” to refer to the underlying disease (CAD/HCVD), not medical procedures undertaken to manage that disease.

    The court explained that the interpretation of labor laws should always favor the laborer. Article 4 of the Labor Code explicitly states that “all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.” In this case, the employer already knew about Leoncio’s CAD/HCVD since 2001, when he was first medically repatriated. The stenting procedure, the Court reasoned, was merely an attempt to manage this existing condition. The employer cannot now claim ignorance or misrepresentation simply because Leoncio did not disclose the procedure during his 2014 PEME. To further emphasize the importance of such interpretation, The New Civil Code, Article 1702 states that “ all labor contracts” shall likewise be construed in favor of the laborer.

    The Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous rulings like Status Maritime v. Spouses Delalamon, where a seafarer was disqualified for concealing his diabetes—a pre-existing disease, not a prior procedure or surgery. Similarly, in Vetyard Terminals & Shipping Services, Inc., v. Suarez, the seafarer misrepresented that he was merely wearing corrective lenses when he had a previous cataract operation. In both cases, the concealment pertained directly to the underlying medical condition and was not previously known to the employer.

    The Court underscored the importance of construing ambiguities in favor of the laborer and highlighted that the stenting procedure aimed to improve Leoncio’s health condition. This improvement does not negate the employer’s prior knowledge of his underlying CAD/HCVD. The Court stated,

    As it is, the stenting procedure undergone by Leoncio on his LAD and LCX arteries is nothing more than an attempt to discontinue the steady progression of his illness or condition—his CAD/HCVD, which was already known by his employers.

    Regarding the work-relatedness of Leoncio’s condition, the Court referred to Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, which lists cardiovascular disease as a compensable work-related condition. The Court noted that the seafarer’s duties and the harsh conditions of maritime work contributed to the acute exacerbation of his heart condition. The Court highlighted the emotional strain, varying temperatures, and harsh weather conditions faced by seafarers, supporting the conclusion that his work environment precipitated the onset of his heart condition. These cumulative factors substantiated the presumption of work-relatedness, entitling him to disability benefits. The Court therefore found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer’s failure to disclose a prior medical procedure (stenting) during a PEME constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, barring disability benefits, when the employer already knew about the underlying illness.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that non-disclosure of a medical procedure does not automatically disqualify a seafarer from disability benefits if the employer was aware of the underlying condition.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The POEA-SEC (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract) is a standard employment contract that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers.
    What is a PEME? A PEME (Pre-Employment Medical Examination) is a medical examination required for seafarers before they are deployed to ensure they are fit for sea duty.
    What does Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC state? Section 20(E) states that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the PEME is liable for misrepresentation and disqualified from compensation and benefits.
    What is CAD/HCVD? CAD/HCVD stands for Coronary Artery Disease/Hypertensive Cardio-Vascular Disease, a heart condition that Almario Leoncio had been diagnosed with prior to his last employment contract.
    Why was the seafarer initially denied disability benefits? The seafarer was initially denied benefits because he did not disclose that he had undergone a stenting procedure during his pre-employment medical examination.
    What is the significance of the employer knowing about the pre-existing condition? The employer’s prior knowledge of the pre-existing condition negates the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation based on the non-disclosure of the related medical procedure.
    How does this ruling affect seafarers in the Philippines? This ruling protects seafarers by ensuring they are not unfairly denied disability benefits based on technicalities when the employer was already aware of their underlying health condition.

    This case clarifies the interpretation of concealment in the context of seafarer employment contracts, emphasizing the protection of seafarers’ rights. It sets a precedent against denying benefits based on non-disclosure of medical procedures related to known pre-existing conditions.

    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: ALMARIO F. LEONCIO, PETITIONER, V. MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC., G.R. No. 230357, December 06, 2017

  • Seafarer’s Duty: Strict Compliance with Reporting Requirements for Disability Claims

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that a seafarer’s failure to comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement for post-employment medical examination results in the forfeiture of their right to claim disability benefits. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in maritime employment contracts, particularly concerning work-related injuries or illnesses. It underscores that while the law aims to protect seafarers, they must also fulfill their obligations to substantiate claims for disability compensation.

    The Case of the Ailing Seaman: Reporting Requirements vs. Right to Compensation

    This case revolves around Veronico O. Tagud, a seafarer who claimed disability benefits after an injury sustained while working on a vessel. The central legal question is whether Tagud’s failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three days of his repatriation forfeits his right to claim disability benefits, despite his claim that the injury was work-related and occurred during his employment.

    The facts indicate that Tagud was employed as an Able Bodied Seaman. He was injured on October 18, 2008, when he lost his balance due to the ship tilting, and his elbow struck a hard object. He underwent an x-ray which revealed no fracture, only a small olecranon spur. After disembarking in Singapore, he was repatriated to Manila. He alleged that he was not assisted by his manning agency or referred to a company-designated physician. Months later, he sought medical attention for pain in his upper right extremities, eventually leading to a diagnosis of neuritis and a claim for permanent disability benefits.

    However, the respondents, BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc. and Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (Cyprus), denied liability, asserting that Tagud was repatriated on a “finished contract” and did not comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement. The Labor Arbiter initially granted Tagud’s complaint, but the NLRC reversed this decision, a reversal that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court then reviewed the CA’s decision.

    The legal framework for this case is primarily based on the 2000 POEA-SEC, which governs the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels. Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC outlines the compensation and benefits a seafarer is entitled to in case of work-related injury or illness. Crucially, it also stipulates the mandatory post-employment medical examination. The provision states:

    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.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to this requirement, citing Heirs of the Late Delfin Dela Cruz v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.. The Court stated that the three-day mandatory reporting requirement is essential to determine whether the illness or injury was contracted during the seafarer’s employment or if working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. Without this examination, employers would face difficulties in determining the cause of a claimant’s illness, potentially leading to unrelated claims.

    The Court found that Tagud failed to comply with the three-day reporting requirement and did not provide evidence of any attempt to submit himself to a company-designated physician within the prescribed period. He also failed to present a letter stating he was physically incapacitated, which would have served as an exemption to the rule. It took him four months to seek medical attention, and that was at a private clinic. These actions were deemed insufficient to substantiate his claim for disability benefits. In this case it cannot be determined by the evidence presented if it happened during the contract or after.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed Tagud’s argument that his non-compliance should be excused due to the respondents’ inadvertence or deliberate refusal. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by this argument. The Court reasoned that the POEA standard employment contract is designed for the protection of Filipino seafarers. However, claimants must still comply with procedural requirements and provide substantial evidence to establish their right to benefits.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged the pro-seafarer inclination of the POEA-SEC. However, it ultimately sided with a strict interpretation of the post-employment medical examination requirements. The ruling underscores the need for seafarers to diligently follow the procedural guidelines set forth in their employment contracts to successfully claim disability benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer’s failure to comply with the three-day post-repatriation medical examination requirement forfeits his right to disability benefits.
    What is the three-day reporting requirement? The three-day reporting requirement mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of their return, unless physically incapacitated.
    What happens if a seafarer fails to meet this requirement? Failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement results in the forfeiture of the seafarer’s right to claim sickness allowance and disability benefits.
    What if the seafarer is physically unable to report within three days? If physically incapacitated, the seafarer must provide written notice to the agency within the same three-day period to be considered compliant.
    What evidence did the seafarer present in this case? The seafarer presented an x-ray report taken after the injury, but it did not conclusively prove a work-related disability during his employment.
    Why did the Supreme Court deny the seafarer’s claim? The Court denied the claim due to the seafarer’s failure to comply with the three-day reporting requirement and lack of substantial evidence proving a work-related injury during the employment term.
    What does the POEA-SEC aim to protect? The POEA-SEC aims to protect and benefit Filipino seafarers in their overseas employment, but claimants must still meet the necessary procedural and evidentiary requirements.
    What is the significance of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician plays a crucial role in determining whether the seafarer suffered a permanent disability due to illness or injury during their employment.

    In conclusion, this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in employment contracts, particularly for seafarers seeking disability benefits. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that while the law aims to protect seafarers, they must also fulfill their obligations to substantiate their claims within the prescribed timelines.

    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: Veronico O. Tagud v. BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 219370, December 06, 2017

  • Burden of Proof and the Seafarer: Establishing Work-Relatedness in Disability Claims

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies the burden of proof for seafarers claiming disability benefits. The court ruled that while concealment of pre-existing conditions can disqualify a seafarer from benefits, the employer must prove such concealment was willful. More importantly, the seafarer bears the responsibility of demonstrating a direct link between their work environment and the illness, a connection not automatically presumed even if the illness surfaces during employment.

    Navigating the Seas of Sickness: Can a Seafarer’s Ailment Be Tied to Their Toil?

    The case of Teodoro V. Ventura, Jr. v. Crewtech Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 225995, decided on November 20, 2017, revolves around a seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits. Ventura, employed as a Chief Cook, sought compensation for illnesses that manifested while working on board a vessel. The central legal question is whether Ventura’s medical conditions, specifically cystitis with cystolithiases and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), were work-related, thus entitling him to disability benefits under the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

    The factual backdrop reveals that Ventura underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty. However, during his employment, he experienced difficulty urinating and lower abdominal pain, leading to a diagnosis of prostatitis in Singapore. Upon repatriation, further tests revealed cystitis with cystolithiases and BPH. The company-designated physician deemed these conditions non-work-related, attributing them to genetic predisposition, diet, water intake, and hormonal changes associated with aging. Ventura obtained a second opinion from an independent physician, who declared him permanently disabled due to the presence of an indwelling catheter and frequent urinary tract infections. This divergence in medical assessments set the stage for a legal battle concerning the compensability of Ventura’s illnesses.

    The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed Ventura’s complaint, finding a failure to prove the work-relatedness of his conditions and citing his non-disclosure of a prior prostatitis diagnosis. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, awarding disability benefits. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) sided with the LA, reinstating the dismissal of the disability claim. The CA emphasized Ventura’s failure to establish a causal connection between his work and his illnesses, aligning with the company-designated physician’s assessment.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, addressed the issue of concealment. It clarified that while Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC disqualifies seafarers who knowingly conceal pre-existing illnesses, there was no such concealment on Ventura’s part. The Court noted that the respondents were aware of Ventura’s medical history, and his prior prostatitis was treated and did not require ongoing medication. Therefore, his failure to disclose it in the PEME was not a willful misrepresentation. Here is the exact wording of the provision:

    E.
    A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits. This is likewise a just cause for termination of employment and imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions.

    Building on this principle, the Court then delved into the core issue of work-relatedness. The 2010 POEA-SEC stipulates that employers are liable for disability benefits only when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness during their contract. While illnesses not listed as occupational diseases are disputably presumed as work-related, this presumption doesn’t guarantee automatic compensation. The seafarer must present substantial evidence demonstrating that their working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the illness.

    Ventura’s case lacked this crucial evidence. His assertions of stressful duties and hazardous conditions were deemed mere conjectures. The Court emphasized that establishing a reasonable link between work and illness is essential for a valid claim. It is not enough that the illness manifested during employment; a causal connection must be demonstrated.

    This highlights the crucial distinction between the emergence of an illness during employment and its direct causation or aggravation by work-related factors. In cases involving illnesses like cystitis and BPH, the burden lies on the seafarer to provide concrete evidence that their specific working conditions contributed to the development or worsening of these conditions. Generalized claims of stressful duties are insufficient without a clear demonstration of how those duties directly impacted their health.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court underscored the significance of the company-designated physician’s assessment. While a seafarer can seek a second opinion, the 2010 POEA-SEC provides a conflict-resolution mechanism involving a third doctor jointly agreed upon by both parties. Failure to observe this procedure means the company-designated physician’s assessment prevails. The court quoted the provision:

    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.

    In Ventura’s case, the independent physician’s assessment did not refute the company-designated physician’s pronouncement of non-work-relatedness. The independent physician merely reiterated Ventura’s medical history and declared him permanently disabled due to the catheter and urinary tract infections. This further weakened Ventura’s claim, as it failed to provide the necessary link between his work and his illnesses.

    The case underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA-SEC, particularly the conflict-resolution mechanism involving a third doctor. It also reinforces the principle that while the courts adopt a liberal approach in favor of seafarers, claims for compensation must be supported by substantial evidence, not mere possibilities or conjectures. The absence of this evidence led the Supreme Court to uphold the CA’s decision, denying Ventura’s claim for disability benefits.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that while it adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer, it cannot allow claims for compensation based on whims and caprices. When the evidence presented negates compensability, the claim must fail, lest injustice be caused to the employer.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer’s illnesses were work-related, entitling him to disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, and whether he concealed a pre-existing condition during his pre-employment medical examination.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The POEA-SEC is the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, which sets the terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels. It outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
    What is the significance of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician plays a crucial role in assessing a seafarer’s fitness to work or the extent of their disability. Their assessment carries significant weight, and disagreements must be resolved through a third doctor as outlined in the POEA-SEC.
    What does it mean for an illness to be “work-related” in this context? For an illness to be considered work-related, there must be a reasonable link between the seafarer’s working conditions and the development or aggravation of the illness. The seafarer must provide substantial evidence to support this connection.
    What happens if there’s a disagreement between the seafarer’s doctor and the company-designated doctor? The POEA-SEC provides a mechanism for resolving such disagreements. A third doctor, jointly agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer, should be consulted, and their decision is final and binding.
    What is the effect of concealing a pre-existing illness during the PEME? Under Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC, a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness during the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) can be disqualified from receiving compensation and benefits. It can also be a basis for termination of employment.
    What evidence is needed to prove a work-related illness? Substantial evidence is required, which means more than a mere possibility or conjecture. It should include credible information that establishes a causal link between the working conditions and the illness.
    Can a seafarer still receive disability benefits if the illness is not listed as an occupational disease? Yes, illnesses not listed as occupational diseases are disputably presumed to be work-related. However, the seafarer still needs to provide evidence that their work caused or increased the risk of contracting the illness.
    What was the final ruling in this case? The Supreme Court denied the seafarer’s petition and upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, which ruled that the seafarer was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because he failed to prove that his illnesses were work-related.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughly documenting and substantiating claims for disability benefits. Seafarers must be prepared to present concrete evidence linking their working conditions to their illnesses to successfully navigate the legal requirements for compensation.

    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: Teodoro V. Ventura, Jr. v. Crewtech Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 225995, November 20, 2017

  • Seafarer’s Rights: Defining Total and Permanent Disability in Maritime Employment

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies the rights of seafarers concerning disability benefits, emphasizing the importance of timely and conclusive medical assessments by company-designated physicians. The Court ruled that if these physicians fail to provide a definitive assessment of a seafarer’s fitness to work or degree of disability within the prescribed period (120 or 240 days), the seafarer is deemed to be totally and permanently disabled. This ruling protects seafarers from indefinite waiting periods and ensures they receive due compensation when their ability to work at sea is compromised. It also highlights the responsibility of maritime employers to ensure timely medical evaluations and transparent communication regarding a seafarer’s health status.

    Delayed Diagnosis, Denied Benefits? Mabunay’s Fight for Seafarer Justice

    Macario Mabunay, Jr., an oiler working aboard M/V Larisa, suffered a back injury after slipping in the engine room. Despite informing his superiors, he was instructed to continue working until the ship docked in Nanjing, China, where he received an initial diagnosis of chest and spinal column bone damage. Medically repatriated to Manila, Mabunay was examined by company-designated physicians who recommended surgery. After undergoing a discectomy, he sought opinions from private physicians who both declared him unfit to work. The core legal question revolves around whether Mabunay is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering the delayed and allegedly insufficient assessment from the company-designated physicians, versus the assessments of his own doctors declaring him unfit to return to work as a seaman.

    The heart of this case lies in interpreting Section 20(B) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which governs the compensation and benefits for Filipino seafarers. According to the POEA-SEC, a seafarer is entitled to compensation if they suffer work-related injury or illness during their contract. Specifically, Section 20(B)(3) stipulates that a seafarer receives sickness allowance until declared fit to work or a permanent disability is assessed by a company-designated physician, a period not exceeding 120 days.

    Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc., the petitioner, argued that Mabunay was given a Grade 8 disability rating by their company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, and that Mabunay failed to seek a third, independent doctor as required by the POEA-SEC when he disagreed with this assessment. However, the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially found that Sharpe Sea failed to provide evidence of this Grade 8 assessment, thus favoring Mabunay’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized the necessity of timely submission of evidence, stating that while labor tribunals aren’t strictly bound by technical rules, a significant delay requires adequate explanation.

    The Supreme Court carefully examined the sequence of events and the conduct of the parties involved. It noted that Sharpe Sea only presented the medical report with the Grade 8 disability rating during their Motion for Reconsideration before the NLRC, a significant delay that raised suspicion. The Court also highlighted that the company-designated physician’s assessment was merely an “interim disability grading,” not a final and conclusive assessment of Mabunay’s fitness to work. Interim assessments do not satisfy the requirement for a definite diagnosis within the specified timeframe, as highlighted in Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz, which states that such interim grades are initial determinations that do not provide sufficient basis for disability benefits.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the company-designated physician has a duty to provide a definite assessment of the seafarer’s condition within 120 or 240 days from repatriation. Failure to do so results in the seafarer being deemed totally and permanently disabled, as affirmed in Kestrel Shipping v. Munar, which clarified that if a seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved within the specified period, they are considered totally and permanently disabled. The court emphasized the importance of conclusive assessments, drawing from Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., highlighting that this assessment needs to be definite to be binding.

    The Court addressed the matter of damages. Bad faith, in a legal context, implies a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Here, Sharpe Sea’s delayed submission of the disability rating and failure to provide Mabunay with clear information about his condition indicated bad faith. The Court found that this action caused Mabunay mental anguish and forced him to seek his own medical opinions. The Supreme Court, referencing Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, defines bad faith as “a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.”

    The court weighed the seafarer’s allegations of inhumane treatment aboard M/V Larisa, where he was compelled to continue working despite his injury. While the Court acknowledged these claims, the primary basis for awarding damages was the company’s bad faith in handling Mabunay’s medical assessment and disability claim. As cited by the Court, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Chin highlights the importance of compensating for anxiety and inconvenience, while Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines stresses the deterrent effect of exemplary damages against oppressive acts.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the seafarer, Macario Mabunay, Jr., was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits due to a work-related injury, considering the delayed and allegedly insufficient medical assessment from the company-designated physicians.
    What does the POEA-SEC say about disability claims? The POEA-SEC (Section 20[B]) provides the framework for compensation and benefits when a seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness. It requires the company-designated physician to assess the seafarer’s condition within a specified timeframe.
    What happens if the company doctor doesn’t give a final assessment in time? If the company-designated physician fails to provide a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or disability within 120 or 240 days, the seafarer is deemed to be totally and permanently disabled.
    What is the significance of an “interim” disability grade? An interim disability grade is a preliminary assessment and does not constitute a final and binding determination of the seafarer’s condition. It cannot serve as the sole basis for awarding disability benefits.
    Why was the company found to have acted in bad faith? The company acted in bad faith by belatedly submitting the disability rating and withholding crucial medical information from the seafarer, forcing him to seek his own medical opinions and causing mental anguish.
    What kind of damages were awarded in this case? The Court awarded moral and exemplary damages, in addition to the disability benefits, transportation expenses, and MRI expenses. Moral damages compensate for mental anguish, while exemplary damages serve as a deterrent against similar oppressive acts.
    Is a seafarer required to consult a third doctor if they disagree with the company doctor? The POEA-SEC states that if a seafarer disagrees with the company doctor’s assessment, they can consult a third doctor. However, the Court highlighted that the seafarer cannot be faulted for failing to consult a third doctor if the company fails to provide a timely and clear medical assessment.
    What is the key takeaway for seafarers from this case? Seafarers are entitled to timely and conclusive medical assessments from company-designated physicians. Failure to provide such assessments within the prescribed period can result in the seafarer being deemed totally and permanently disabled, entitling them to appropriate compensation and benefits.

    This decision serves as a reminder to maritime employers of their responsibilities to seafarers who risk their lives and health for the industry. The prompt assessment and transparent communication are paramount in ensuring fair treatment and just compensation. Companies must act in good faith and prioritize the well-being of their employees.

    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: Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay, G.R. No. 206113, November 6, 2017

  • Medical Abandonment in Seafarer Disability Claims: Upholding Treatment Obligations

    The Supreme Court’s decision in C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta clarifies the responsibilities of seafarers to adhere to medical treatments prescribed by company-designated physicians. It emphasizes that a seafarer’s failure to complete a prescribed medical treatment within the 240-day period constitutes medical abandonment, potentially impacting their claim for disability benefits. This ruling reinforces the importance of seafarers fulfilling their contractual obligations to undergo medical evaluations and treatments, while affirming the employer’s right to assess the seafarer’s condition within the specified timeframe. Ultimately, the case underscores the need for seafarers to actively participate in their medical care to ensure the validity of their disability claims.

    When Treatment Becomes a Tug-of-War: Examining a Seafarer’s Duty to Medical Care

    This case revolves around Noel N. Orbeta, a seafarer employed as an Able Seaman by C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. and Gulf Energy Maritime. On January 3, 2010, while working, Orbeta slipped and fell on his back, resulting in an injury. After complaining of pain, he was medically repatriated and attended to by a company-designated physician. The physician initially suspected a compression fracture but later diagnosed him with “lumbosacral muscular spasm with mild spondylosis L3-L4,” assigning a Grade 10 partial disability rating. A bone scan was scheduled, but Orbeta instead consulted an independent physician, Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who issued a “Disability Report” stating Orbeta was permanently disabled and unfit for sea duty.

    The core legal question in this case is whether Orbeta is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, considering he discontinued treatment with the company-designated physician and sought an independent medical opinion. Petitioners argued that Orbeta abandoned his treatment, violating the POEA-SEC, while the respondent contended his condition warranted a permanent total disability rating based on the independent physician’s assessment. This scenario highlights the tension between a seafarer’s right to seek independent medical advice and the contractual obligations to undergo treatment under the company’s designated physician.

    The Labor Arbiter initially granted disability benefits based on a Grade 6 disability. The NLRC modified the decision, awarding total and permanent disability benefits but deleting attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The Supreme Court took a different stance. It partially granted the petition, emphasizing the seafarer’s obligation to complete treatment with the company-designated physician.

    The Supreme Court leaned on the principle that disability is only considered permanent and total when declared by the company-designated physician or, if there is no such declaration, after the lapse of 120 or 240 days while the employee remains unable to work. The Court clarified that the mere passage of the 120-day period does not automatically grant entitlement to permanent total disability benefits. The court cited Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Jaleco, reiterating that if further medical attention is needed beyond the initial 120 days, the temporary total disability period may be extended up to 240 days.

    In this case, Orbeta underwent treatment with the company-designated physician for 126 days. After his partial diagnosis, he failed to return for the scheduled bone scan. Instead, he sought an independent medical opinion, which also recommended further tests. “[T]o determine the exact problem on his lumbar spine,” as stated in the Disability Report. The Court found that Orbeta’s decision to file a labor complaint prematurely was a legal misstep. Both the company-designated physician and Dr. Escutin agreed that the bone scan was crucial to properly ascertain his condition. Consequently, the Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner’s assertion that Orbeta abandoned his medical treatment, precluding a proper assessment of his condition within the 240-day period allowed under the POEA contract.

    The Court highlighted the case of New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, where a seafarer was deemed to have abandoned medical treatment for failing to complete it within the 240-day period, thus preventing the company physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his disability. Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC stipulates that no compensation is payable if the seafarer’s injury or disability results from willful acts or intentional breach of duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that a seafarer is obligated to complete medical treatment until a declaration of fitness or a permanent disability grading is issued. In Orbeta’s case, his failure to pursue further treatment and his premature filing of the disability claim hindered a comprehensive evaluation of his medical condition.

    The Court recognized Orbeta’s potential belief that the initial diagnosis was the final assessment, prompting him to seek an independent opinion and file the case. The court acknowledged the employee’s disadvantage in the employment relationship, noting that his distrust of the petitioners might not be entirely unwarranted. Despite Orbeta’s premature actions, the Court acknowledged his entitlement to compensation commensurate with his injury, highlighting that his work-related condition required further medical care that could have been resolved had he followed the prescribed procedures.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to reinstate and affirm the Labor Arbiter’s original decision. This effectively granted Orbeta disability benefits equivalent to a Grade 6 disability, along with attorney’s fees. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the seafarer’s duty to comply with medical treatments prescribed by the company-designated physician with the right to receive fair compensation for work-related injuries. The case serves as a reminder that while seafarers are entitled to seek independent medical opinions, they cannot abandon the prescribed treatment without potentially jeopardizing their claims for disability benefits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to permanent total disability benefits despite abandoning treatment with the company-designated physician and prematurely filing a labor complaint.
    What is the significance of the 240-day period? The 240-day period is the maximum timeframe within which a company-designated physician can assess a seafarer’s medical condition and determine their fitness to work or assign a disability grading.
    What does “medical abandonment” mean in this context? Medical abandonment refers to a seafarer’s failure to complete the medical treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician within the allotted timeframe, hindering a proper assessment of their condition.
    Can a seafarer seek an independent medical opinion? Yes, a seafarer can seek an independent medical opinion, but it doesn’t absolve them from the obligation to undergo treatment with the company-designated physician.
    What happens if the company doctor and the seafarer’s doctor disagree? The POEA-SEC provides a mechanism for a third doctor to be jointly agreed upon by the employer and seafarer, whose decision will be final and binding on both parties.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The POEA-SEC stands for the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, which governs the employment terms and conditions of Filipino seafarers.
    What was the final ruling in this case? The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, awarding the seafarer disability benefits equivalent to a Grade 6 disability, along with attorney’s fees, based on the initial injury assessment.
    Why was the seafarer not awarded total and permanent disability? The seafarer was not awarded total and permanent disability because he prematurely filed his claim and abandoned the prescribed medical treatment, preventing a complete and accurate assessment of his condition.

    The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the importance of adhering to medical treatment protocols in seafarer disability claims. This ruling underscores the need for seafarers to fulfill their contractual obligations while seeking fair compensation for work-related injuries, establishing a balance between employee rights and employer responsibilities 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: C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. v. ORBETA, G.R. No. 211111, September 25, 2017

  • Seafarer’s Rights: Employer’s Duty to Provide Medical Examination Prevails Over Technicalities and Invalid Quitclaims

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the rights of seafarers to claim disability benefits, emphasizing that employers cannot evade their responsibilities through technicalities or invalid quitclaims. The Court ruled that when an employer prevents a seafarer from undergoing a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician, the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits is not forfeited. Furthermore, the Court invalidated a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that purported to waive the seafarer’s rights, finding it to be based on an unreasonable consideration and obtained under duress. This decision reinforces the State’s commitment to protecting labor rights and ensuring fair compensation for injured seafarers, preventing employers from exploiting vulnerable employees.

    From the High Seas to the Courtroom: Can a Seafarer’s Injury Claim Be Sunk by a Forced Agreement?

    Wilmer O. De Andres, a seafarer, suffered a severe leg injury while working on a fishing vessel. Despite his injury, his employer, Diamond H Marine Services, delayed his repatriation and, upon his return, allegedly refused to acknowledge his disability claim, citing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) where De Andres purportedly waived his rights in exchange for a small sum. The central legal question was whether De Andres was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, despite the MOA and his failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within the required timeframe. The Supreme Court tackled this question, scrutinizing the validity of the MOA and the employer’s actions regarding De Andres’s medical examination.

    The Court’s analysis hinged on Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 Amended POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which outlines the procedure for claiming disability benefits. This section mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of repatriation. The rationale behind this requirement is to facilitate an accurate assessment of the seafarer’s condition and its relation to their work.

    However, the Court recognized exceptions to this strict rule. One exception applies when the seafarer is physically incapacitated, and another when the employer prevents the seafarer from complying with the requirement. In De Andres’s case, the Court found that Diamond H Marine Services prevented him from undergoing the necessary medical examination. According to the decision, De Andres reported to Diamond H Marine Services on the next working day following his repatriation, but the Operations Manager, Ellen Purification, informed him that the company would not entertain his claims. This action effectively blocked De Andres from accessing the company-designated physician. The Supreme Court emphasized that it was the employer’s responsibility to refer De Andres to a company doctor, a duty they failed to fulfill.

    The Court also addressed the validity of the MOA that De Andres signed, which stipulated that he would not file any complaints against the respondents in exchange for NT$40,000.00 and a plane ticket back to the Philippines. The Court applied the established criteria for valid quitclaims, emphasizing that such agreements must be free from fraud, supported by sufficient consideration, and not contrary to law or public policy. The Court found the MOA invalid on several grounds.

    First, the consideration was grossly inadequate, given the severity of De Andres’s injury, which included an open fracture of his left leg requiring multiple surgeries. The amount of NT$40,000.00 was deemed disproportionate to the long-term disability and medical expenses incurred by De Andres. Second, the Court found that De Andres was essentially forced to sign the agreement as a precondition for repatriation. This lack of free will invalidated the MOA.

    Additionally, the Court noted that the MOA was not properly explained or notarized by a representative from the Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO), despite the respondents’ claims. The document merely contained a stamp without any signature or indication that its contents were explained to De Andres. Therefore, the Court concluded that the MOA did not constitute a valid quitclaim and could not bar De Andres from claiming his full disability benefits. This case underscores the principle that in disputes between laborers and employers, doubts are to be resolved in favor of the laborer. This principle aligns with the State’s policy to provide maximum aid and protection to labor.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC for assessing disability claims. This process aims to provide a fair and definitive evaluation of a seafarer’s medical condition and ensure just compensation for their injuries. By attempting to circumvent these procedures with an invalid quitclaim, Diamond H Marine Services sought to evade its responsibilities, a practice the Court strongly condemned. The Court emphasized that it would not hesitate to invalidate agreements that frustrate the POEA-SEC’s intent and undermine the constitutional mandate to protect labor rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Wilmer O. De Andres, was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits despite his failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement and the existence of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) waiving his claims.
    What is the mandatory reporting requirement for seafarers? The mandatory reporting requirement, as per Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC, requires seafarers to submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon their return, or risk forfeiting their right to claim disability benefits.
    What exceptions exist to the mandatory reporting requirement? Exceptions include situations where the seafarer is physically incapacitated to report, or when the employer prevents the seafarer from submitting to the required medical examination.
    Why was the MOA in this case deemed invalid? The MOA was deemed invalid because the consideration (NT$40,000.00) was grossly inadequate considering the severity of the seafarer’s injury, he was forced to sign it as a condition for repatriation, and it was not properly explained or notarized.
    What is the significance of a company-designated physician’s assessment? The assessment of a company-designated physician is crucial in determining the extent of a seafarer’s disability and their entitlement to benefits. Without it, there is no official basis to challenge the seafarer’s own medical findings.
    What happens when the company fails to provide a company-designated physician? When the employer fails to provide a company-designated physician for examination, the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits cannot be denied solely on the basis of non-compliance with the reporting requirement.
    What benefits was the seafarer entitled to in this case? The seafarer was entitled to US$60,000.00 representing his total and permanent disability benefits.
    What is the legal basis for protecting seafarers’ rights? The legal basis stems from the POEA-SEC, labor laws, and the Constitution, which mandates the State to provide maximum aid and protection to labor.

    This ruling underscores the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations to seafarers and respecting their rights under the law. The decision serves as a reminder that technicalities and unfair agreements will not shield employers from their responsibilities to provide just compensation for work-related injuries. It reasserts the judiciary’s role in protecting vulnerable workers and ensuring that their claims are evaluated fairly and in accordance with established legal principles.

    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: Wilmer O. De Andres v. Diamond H Marine Services, G.R. No. 217345, July 12, 2017

  • Timely Disability Claims: Seafarers’ Rights and Employer Obligations Under POEA-SEC

    The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s claim for permanent disability benefits was premature because it was filed before the expiration of the 240-day period for medical assessment by the company-designated physician. This decision clarifies the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) regarding the timing of disability claims and the role of the company-designated physician in assessing a seafarer’s fitness for duty.

    Anchoring Hope: When Can a Seafarer Claim Disability Benefits?

    In TSM Shipping Phils., Inc. v. Patiño, the central question revolves around the timing of a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits. Louie Patiño, a seafarer, sustained an injury while working on board a vessel. Following his repatriation, he underwent medical treatment with a company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz. Prior to the lapse of 240 days from the date of repatriation, and while still undergoing treatment, Patiño filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. The core legal issue is whether Patiño’s claim was premature, given that the company-designated physician had not yet issued a final assessment within the prescribed period.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of adhering to the provisions of the POEA-SEC and relevant labor laws, which are deemed integrated into the employment contract between the seafarer and the employer. The Court referred to Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code, which addresses permanent total disability, and Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation Implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, which specifies the period of entitlement. Section 20 B(3) of the POEA-SEC was also cited, outlining the seafarer’s entitlement to sickness allowance and the procedure for post-employment medical examination.

    Building on these provisions, the Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines established in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., which harmonized the aforementioned regulations. According to Vergara, a seafarer must report to the company-designated physician within three days of arrival for diagnosis and treatment. During the treatment period, not exceeding 120 days, the seafarer is considered under temporary total disability and receives his basic wage. This period can be extended up to 240 days if further medical attention is required. The employer retains the right to declare a permanent disability within this extended period.

    Based on these established guidelines, the Supreme Court in C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok outlined the specific conditions under which a seafarer may validly pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits. These conditions include instances where the company-designated physician fails to issue a declaration within the prescribed periods, issues a contrary opinion to the seafarer’s chosen physician, acknowledges a partial disability while other doctors believe it to be total, or disputes the disability grading. Essentially, the seafarer must demonstrate that the assessment process has been exhausted or improperly handled by the employer before filing a claim.

    In Patiño’s case, the Court found that his complaint was prematurely filed. He was repatriated on May 24, 2010, and received medical attention from Dr. Cruz. An interim assessment of Grade 10 disability was issued on August 17, 2010, while Patiño was still undergoing treatment. However, on September 8, 2010—only 107 days after repatriation—Patiño filed a complaint for disability benefits. At this point, he was still considered under temporary total disability, as the 120/240-day period had not yet lapsed. The Court emphasized that Patiño’s belief that his injury had rendered him permanently disabled did not justify the premature filing of the complaint.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that Patiño only sought the opinion of his own physician, Dr. Escutin, after filing the complaint. This sequence of events further underscored the prematurity of his action. The Labor Arbiter, therefore, should have dismissed the complaint due to a lack of cause of action. This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and timelines in pursuing disability claims.

    The Court also addressed the lower tribunals’ reliance on the 120-day rule and Patiño’s perceived inability to work, resulting in a loss of earning capacity. The Court clarified that a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when the company-designated physician declares it so within the 240-day period or fails to make such a declaration after its lapse. Dr. Cruz issued a final assessment of Grade 10 disability on September 29, 2010, well within the 240-day period. Therefore, Patiño could not claim entitlement to the maximum benefit of US$60,000.00, which is typically reserved for permanent total disabilities.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the controlling nature of the medical assessment made by the company-designated physician. The POEA-SEC explicitly states that the company-designated physician determines a seafarer’s fitness or unfitness for work. If the seafarer’s physician disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon, whose decision shall be final and binding. In Patiño’s case, this procedure was not followed. He sought a second opinion but did not pursue the process of jointly selecting a third doctor to resolve the conflicting assessments.

    The Court has consistently held that non-observance of the third doctor requirement results in the company-designated physician’s assessment prevailing. As reiterated in Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr., the failure to adhere to the agreed procedure leaves the Court with no option but to uphold the certification issued by the company-designated physician. In this case, Dr. Cruz’s assessment was deemed final and binding due to Patiño’s failure to properly dispute it through the prescribed channels.

    Moreover, the Court noted that Dr. Cruz had closely monitored Patiño’s condition from repatriation until his last follow-up examination. This continuous supervision allowed Dr. Cruz to gain a detailed understanding of Patiño’s medical status. The extensive medical attention, including surgery and physical therapy, further solidified the reliability of Dr. Cruz’s assessment. In contrast, Dr. Escutin’s opinion, obtained after Patiño had already filed his complaint, carried less weight due to the limited scope of his evaluation.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements and timelines outlined in the POEA-SEC. A seafarer’s claim for disability benefits must be filed after the company-designated physician has had the opportunity to fully assess the seafarer’s condition within the prescribed period. Failure to follow these procedures, including the proper disputing of the company-designated physician’s assessment, can result in the denial or reduction of disability benefits. The Court ultimately ruled that Patiño was entitled only to the amount corresponding to a Grade 10 disability, as certified by Dr. Cruz, highlighting the significance of properly navigating the legal framework governing seafarers’ disability claims.

    Section 32 of the POEA-SEC provides for a schedule of disability compensation which is often ignored or overlooked in maritime compensation cases. Section 32 laid down a Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted, in conjunction with Section 20 (B)(6) which provides that in case of a permanent total or partial disability, the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with Section 32. Section 32 further declares that any item in the schedule classified under Grade 1 shall be considered or shall constitute total and permanent disability. Therefore, any other grading constitutes otherwise. We stressed in Splash Philippines, Inc. v. Ruizo that it is about time that the schedule of disability compensation under Section 32 be seriously observed.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits was premature because it was filed before the expiration of the 240-day period for assessment by the company-designated physician.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is a standard contract that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers on foreign vessels. It outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition, determining fitness for work, and providing medical treatment. Their assessment is crucial in determining the extent of disability and entitlement to benefits.
    What is the 120/240-day rule? The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which the company-designated physician must assess the seafarer’s condition. The initial period is 120 days, which can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is required.
    What happens if the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company doctor? If the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
    What is the effect of not following the third doctor procedure? Failure to follow the third doctor procedure means that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails. This highlights the importance of adhering to the agreed-upon process for resolving conflicting medical opinions.
    What disability grade was the seafarer initially assessed with? The seafarer, Louie Patiño, was initially given an interim assessment of Grade 10 disability by the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, while he was still undergoing treatment.
    What amount was the seafarer ultimately awarded? The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Patiño was entitled to the amount corresponding to a Grade 10 disability, which amounted to US$10,075.00, based on the certification issued by Dr. Cruz.

    This case underscores the importance of adhering to the established procedures and timelines in pursuing disability claims under the POEA-SEC. Seafarers must ensure that they follow the prescribed steps, including undergoing medical assessment by the company-designated physician and properly disputing any conflicting assessments, to protect their rights and ensure fair compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses.

    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: TSM SHIPPING PHILS., INC. VS. PATIÑO, G.R. No. 210289, March 20, 2017