Scribd
Upload
37 views1 page

Disability Benefits for Seafarer Dispute

Francisco Beseril worked as an assistant cook for United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) on behalf of Holland America Line (HAL). [1] While working, he experienced chest pains and underwent triple heart bypass surgery. [2] One doctor found him unfit to work, but UPL's doctor said he was fit. [3] Beseril filed a complaint claiming disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter awarded benefits, but the NLRC denied them. The Court of Appeals then reversed and awarded benefits. [4] The Supreme Court upheld the disability award, finding that because Beseril was unable to work for nearly three years after his surgery, he was permanently totally disabled under the law,

Uploaded by

Robbie James Yparraguirre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views1 page

Disability Benefits for Seafarer Dispute

Francisco Beseril worked as an assistant cook for United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) on behalf of Holland America Line (HAL). [1] While working, he experienced chest pains and underwent triple heart bypass surgery. [2] One doctor found him unfit to work, but UPL's doctor said he was fit. [3] Beseril filed a complaint claiming disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter awarded benefits, but the NLRC denied them. The Court of Appeals then reversed and awarded benefits. [4] The Supreme Court upheld the disability award, finding that because Beseril was unable to work for nearly three years after his surgery, he was permanently totally disabled under the law,

Uploaded by

Robbie James Yparraguirre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Page 1 of 1

UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. and/or HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC.


v. FRANCISCO BESERIL
487 SCRA 248 (2006)

FACTS:
Francisco Beseril (Francisco) was hired by United Philippine Line, Inc. (UPL) in behalf of its
principal, Holland America Line (HAL). He is usually rehired by UPL to serve as one of the
seaman in HAL’s vessel as an assistant cook. In the middle of his service he started to feel chest
pain and was brought ashore and underwent Triple Heart By-Pass. When he was brought to
Manila he underwent several rehabilitation and physical therapy. One of Francisco’s doctors
found that he was unfit to work.

Relying on the findings of the doctor, Francisco and his counsel demanded for disability pay
from his employer UPL and/or HAL. UPL directed Francisco to undergo an examination with
their company doctor. The company doctor found that Francisco is in fact fit to work as a
seaman. Francisco agreed to work again for UPL but did not show up in their office.

Francisco filed a complaint in the NLRC against ULP and HAL claiming disability benefits, loss
of earning and capacity and damages. The Labor Arbiter awarded Francisco full amount of the
benefits and damages. The NLRC modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter and deleted the
award for disability benefits. ULP and HAL contended that there should be no grant of Disability
Benefit because their company physician certified that he is fit to go back to work. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that the disability
benefit should be awarded.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Disability Benefit should be awarded to Francisco Beseril

HELD:
That Francisco was found to be "fit to return to work" by Clinica Manila (where he underwent
regular cardiac rehabilitation program and physical therapy from January 15 to May 28, 1998
under UPL's account) on September 22, 1998, or a few months after his rehabilitation does not
matter.

UPL tried to contest the above findings by showing that respondent was able to work again as a
chief mate in March 2001. Nonetheless, this information does not alter the fact that as a result of
his illness, respondent was unable to work as a chief mate for almost three years. It is of no
consequence that respondent was cured after a couple of years.

The law does not require that the illness should be incurable. What is important is that he was
unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total
disability. An award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the purpose
of the benefit, which is to help the employee in making ends meet at the time when he is unable
to work.

You might also like