PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
OVERSEAS FILIPINO SEAFARERS’ COMPENSATION
FOR DISABILITY/DEATH
References
• POEA – SEC - Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino
Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, [October 26, 2010])
• 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers,
[2016])
Seafarers’ compensation in case of disability or death
A seafarer’s employment is governed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard
Employment Contact (POEA-SEC). If there is a CBA, it shall apply suppletorily.
When is the illness /injury/death 1. The illness/injury/death must occur with the period of the
compensable? employment contract;
a. The employment contract between the employer and the
seafarer shall commence upon actual departure of the
seafarer from the Philippine airport or seaport in the point of
hire and with a POEA approved contract. It shall be effective
until the seafarer’s date of arrival at the point of hire upon
termination of his employment pursuant to Section 18 of this
Contract.
b. The period of employment shall be for a period mutually
agreed upon by the seafarer and the employer but not to
exceed 12 months. Any extension of the contract shall be
subject to mutual consent of both parties. (Section 2, POEA-
SEC)
2. The same must be work-related.
a. Work-Related Illness - any sickness as a result of an
occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-
SEC with the conditions set therein satisfied.
b. Work-Related Injury - injury arising out of and in the course
of employment.
(Definition of Terms, POEA-SEC)
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
The POEA-SEC (Section 32) contains a list of compensable
illness. Section 20 provides that those illnesses not listed are
disputably presumed compensable.
How to determine compensability For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be
compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to
the described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under
such other factors necessary to contract it; and
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Who shall determine the seafarer’s It shall be the company-designated physician. However, the seafarer may
health condition? When will there be seek the opinion of his own doctor. If there is a conflict between the
reference to third doctor assessment of the company doctor and the seafarer’s doctor, 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.
(Section 20, POEA-SEC)
Effect of failure to refer to third • Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp., G.R. No. 203161,
doctor February 26, 2014.
“Finally, the Court deems it worthy to note that Ayungo failed to comply
with the procedure laid down under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000
POEA-SEC which provides that "[i]f a doctor appointed by the seafarer
disagrees with the assessment [of the company doctor], a third doctor
may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer," and
that "[t]he third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both
parties." In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v.
Dumadag (Philippine Hammonia), the Court held that the seafarer's
non-compliance with the said conflict-resolution procedure results in
the affirmance of the fit-to-work certification of the company-
designated physician.
• Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino G.R. No. 180343,
[July 9, 2014], 738 PHIL 564-577
As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law itself
recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of positive
action to prove that his doctor's findings are correct, as well as the
burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been
made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company
must itself respond by setting into motion the process of
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
choosing a third doctor who, as the POEA-SEC provides, can rule
with finality on the disputed medical situation.
In the absence of a third doctor resolution of the conflicting
assessments between Dr. Lim and Dr. Almeda, Dr. Lim's assessment
of Constantino's health should stand. Thus, the CA's conclusion that
Constantino's inability to work for more than 120 days rendered him
permanently disabled cannot be sustained.
Mandatory 3-day rule 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. Otherwise, the claim may be forfeited.
Compensation and benefits for • If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in
injury or illness a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such
medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as
board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be
repatriated.
• Sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage
• Reimbursement of the cost of medicines prescribed by the
company-designated physician.
• In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer
caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be
compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits
enumerated in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC.
Degree of evidence required Substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required. The evidence
must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove
work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely
apparent.1
Prescription of Action All claims arising from the POEA-SEC shall be made within three (3) years
from the date the cause of action arises, otherwise the same shall be
barred. (Section 30)
Rules on the 120-day and 240-day 1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical
period for determination of assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period
temporary or permanent disability of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment
claim
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
1 Jens Maritime Inc., et al. vs. Undag, G.R. 191491, December 14, 2011
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
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.2
Amount of compensation 1. Temporary disability: sickness allowance from his employer in an
amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he
signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability
has been assessed by the company-designated physician.3
2. Permanent disability: compensated in accordance with the
schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of the POEA
Standard Employment Contract.
3. Death: In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the
term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the
Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US
dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand
US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one
(21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate
prevailing during the time of payment.4
The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the
Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US
dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate
prevailing during the time of payment.5
No compensation for No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury,
injury/disability/death caused by incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or
seafarer criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the
employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is
directly attributable to the seafarer. Section 20(D)
• TSM Shipping (Phils.), Inc. v. De Chavez, G.R. No. 198225,
[September 27, 2017])
In Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Pedrajas, this Court held that
the seafarer's heirs were not entitled to any benefits since the
employers were able to substantially prove that the seafarer who was
found hanging on the vessel's upper deck with a rope tied to his neck
had committed suicide. The employers therein presented the forensic
report of the Medical Examiner appointed by the Italian Court from the
2 Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., G.R. No. 211882 , July 29, 2015
3 POEA –SEC No. 010-10, October 26, 2010, Section 20 (A) (3).
4 Section 20 (B) (1).
5 Section 20 (B) (4) (c).
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
Public Prosecutor's Office of Livorno, Italy which pointed out in detail
that there were no other injuries in the seafarer's body and confirmed
that the deceased himself "tied the rope to the metal pipe" based on
the evaluation of "the crime scene, the rope used for hanging, type of
knot, temperature and position of the body when found." Furthermore,
two suicide notes written by the seafareraddressed to his wife and to
the vessel's crew were also offered as evidence. |
Jurisprudence
• The connection of the illness / death to the work must be proven; the respondent must narrate in detail the
nature of his work; particularly describe his working conditions while on sea duty; specifically state how he
contracted or developed illness while on sea duty and how and why his working conditions aggravated it;
and expert medical opinion must be presented.6
• Claimants in compensation proceedings must show credible information that there is probably a relation
between the illness and the work. Probability, and not mere possibility, is required; otherwise, the resulting
conclusion would proceed from deficient proofs.7
• The two components of the coverage formula – "arising out of" and "in the course of employment" – are said
to be separate tests which must be independently satisfied; however, it should not be forgotten that the basic
concept of compensation coverage is unitary, not dual, and is best expressed in the word, "work-connection,"
because an uncompromising insistence on an independent application of each of the two portions of the test
can, in certain cases, exclude clearly work-connected injuries. The words "arising out of" refer to the origin
or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words "in the course of" refer to the
time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. As a matter of general proposition,
an injury or accident is said to arise "in the course of employment" when it takes place within the period of
the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his duties or is
engaged in doing something incidental thereto.8
• The rationale for the rule [on mandatory post-employment medical examination within three days from
repatriation by a company-designated physician] is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from
repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining
the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a
precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming
disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of
a claimant’s illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have no protection against
unrelated disability claims. In fine, we hold that Victor’s non-compliance with the three-day rule on post-
6 Quizora vs. Denholm Crew Management, G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011
7 Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Salazar, G.R. No. 188595, August 28, 2013
8 Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 135 Phil. 95 (1968).
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
employment medical examination is fatal to his cause. As a consequence, his right to claim for compensation
and disability benefits is forfeited.9
• The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. We have ruled that in the past the
PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of
an applicant's medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for
sea service," it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the "fit to work" declaration in
the respondent's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his
deployment.10
• [The] 2000 POEA-SEC "has created a disputable presumption in favor of compensability[,] saying that those
illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related. This means that even if
the illness is not listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC as an occupational disease or illness, it will
still be presumed as work-related, and it becomes incumbent on the employer to overcome the
presumption." This presumption should be overturned only when the employer's refutation is found to be
supported by substantial evidence, which, as traditionally defined is "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.11
• Those diseases not listed as occupational diseases may be compensated if it is shown that they have been
caused or aggravated by the seafarer's working conditions. The Court stressed that while the POEA-
SEC provides for a disputable presumption of work-relatedness as regards those not listed as occupational
diseases, this presumption does not necessarily result in an automatic grant of disability compensation. The
claimant still has the burden to present substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" that his work conditions caused or at least increased
the risk of contracting the illness.12
• The POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury as "injury(ies) resulting in disability or death arising out of and
in the course of employment," and a work-related illness as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as
a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein
satisfied." For illnesses not mentioned under Section 32, the POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption
in favor of the seafarer that these illnesses are work-related. Notwithstanding the presumption, we have
held that on due process grounds, the claimant-seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that
his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease. This is because awards
of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions. In order to establish
compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable proof of work-connection is sufficient — direct
causal relation is not required. Thus, probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in
compensation proceedings.13
9 Ceriola vs. Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. 193101, April 20, 2015
10 Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc., G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011, 676 PHIL 313-329
11 Racelis v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 198408, November 12, 2014
12 Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Haro, G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016
13 Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Obrero, G.R. No. 192754, September 7, 2016
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LABOR LAW REVIEW LECTURE
Atty. Donna Bernardo
• The seafarer must prove a reasonable link between his work and his illness in order for a rational mind to
determine that such work contributed to, or at least aggravated, his illness. It is not enough that the seafarer's
injury or illness rendered him disabled; it is equally necessary that he establishes a causal connection
between his injury or illness, and the work for which he is engaged.14
14 Supra, Note 10
