2. Seafarers (RA 12021, Secs. 22, 28–29, 32, 57, and its IRR; 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract [2026 DMW-SEC, effective after the cut-off, is excluded])

E. Claims of Seafarers; 2010 Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships (Secs. 20, 32 and 32-A)

POEA-STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

• The seafarer's work must involve the risks described in Sec. 32-A of the POEA-SEC;
• The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
• The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
• There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. (Romana v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 192442, 09 Aug. 2017)

DISABILITY BENEFITS

Elements of a Compensable Injury

• The injury or illness is work-related; and
• It occurred during the term of the seafarer’s contract.

Liabilities of the Employer When the Seafarer Suffers Work-Related Injury or Illness During the Term of His or Her Contract

• The Er shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board the ship;
• If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the Er 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. NOTE: However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the Er until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician;
• The seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his Er 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. (Sec. 20(a) 2010 POEA-SEC) NOTE:
• The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days.
• Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
• The seafarer shall be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of medicines prescribed by the company-designated physician; and
• 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 Sec. 32 of the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

In Case Treatment of the Seafarer is on an Out- Patient Basis as Determined by the Company- designated Physician

• The company shall approve the appropriate mode of transportation and accommodation;
• The reasonable cost of actual traveling expenses and/or accommodation shall be paid subject to liquidation and submission of official receipts and/or proof of expenses; and
• The seafarer shall submit himself to a post- employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within 3 working days upon his return. XPN: 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.

NOTE: In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company- designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. Failure to undergo the post-employment medical examination within 3 working days upon return results in the forfeiture of an employee’s entitlement to disability compensation, unless the seafarer is physically incapacitated to do so and gives the agency written notice within the same period. (Sec. 20- A(3), 2010 POEA-SEC)

Q: Caraan’s duties as a motorman on board MV Star Loen involved strenuous physical activities for his 18-hour shift, and exposed him to all kinds of noxious gases, harmful fumes and excessive noise while inside the engine room. Due to his working conditions and dietary provision, he experienced pain while urinating and discharged blood in his urine. Eventually, he was declared unfit to work and medically repatriated to the Philippines. Instead of being fetched by his Er, he just went straight home to Bataan. His wife informed Grieg PH via mobile phone that he could not personally report to the office due to his medical condition. Caraan got himself examined, where it was revealed that there is a mass in his left kidney. Upon transfer to the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI), his left kidney was surgically removed, where it was confirmed that he had renal cell carcinoma.

Is Caraan entitled to disability benefits?

A: YES. Under Sec. 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, a seafarer claiming benefits for a work-related injury or illness must comply with the post-employment medical examination requirement, subject to its stated exception for physical incapacity. For compensability, the injury must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract and must be work-related.

When he arrived in the Philippines, Caraan was already ill and no longer in good physical condition to go back to Manila for treatment. Immediately, petitioner was subjected to series of laboratory tests to properly diagnose his ailment.

The treatment by the health card-accredited doctors served the equivalent post-employment medical examination to show that petitioner's illness existed during his employment. It is undisputed that Caraan had been with Grieg PH since 2006. Caraan’s illness, renal cell carcinoma, could not have occurred overnight after repatriation. In the case of petitioner, his kidney cancer gradually progressed while he was employed with Grieg PH until it manifested when petitioner complained of pain in urinating and discharging blood in his urine. Hence, at any time during his 8-year employment with Grieg PH, petitioner was already suffering from this illness while at sea.

Petitioner had likewise proved that his working conditions aggravated his kidney ailment. As found by the arbitrators, petitioner had sufficiently established that his working conditions on board the vessel increased the risk of contracting the kidney disease. Grieg PH failed to dispute this and did not even offer any controverting evidence. (Caraan v. Grieg Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 252199, 05 May 2021)

Q: Gonzales, while on board the general cargo vessel Star Florida, experienced "shortness of breath, pain in his left leg, fatigue, fever and headaches." The following month, his past symptoms returned with the added symptom of black tarry stools. He was initially diagnosed with "pancytopenia suspect aplastic anemia." This caused his further medical attention as Gonzales was repatriated in the Philippines.

The company physicians opined that Gonzales' leukemia was not work-related. He sought a second opinion from an independent physician, Dr. Emmanuel Trinidad, who certified that his leukemia was work-related. Gonzales claimed for disability benefits against Grieg Philippines, Inc. but denied the same on the ground that Gonzales was not able to substantially prove the relation between his illness and his former position as an Ordinary Seaman.

Can Gonzales claim disability benefits against Grieg Philippines, Inc.?

A: YES. Settled is the rule that for illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the Ee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.

Gonzales was able to satisfy the conditions under the Sec. 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC and establish a reasonable linkage between his job as an Ordinary Seaman and his leukemia. Gonzales provided his functions as an Ordinary Seaman aboard Star Florida. Among others, his tasks included removing rust accumulations and refinishing affected areas of the ship with chemicals and paint to retard the oxidation process. This meant that he was frequently exposed to harmful chemicals which could have also contributed to Gonzales' leukemia.

It is also not disputed that he contracted leukemia only while he was onboard Star Florida since he was certified to be fit for sea duty prior to boarding and his leukemia was not genetic in nature. (Grieg Philippines, Inc. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 228296, 26 July 2017)

Q: Manansala’s services were engaged by Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc, for him to serve as a fitter on a vessel. Before boarding the vessel, Manansala underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME). In his examination, Manansala was required to disclose information regarding all existing and prior medical conditions. Manansala's examination certificate indicates that he denied having hypertension and diabetes, specifically answering "NO.”

On 30 May 2010, while on board the vessel, Manansala suffered a stroke. Because of this, Manansala was repatriated on 08 June 2010. He was confined at the De Los Santos Medical Center from 10 June 2010 to 23 June 2010, under the primary care of company-designated physician, Dr. Barrairo. While under Dr. Barrairo's care, he "repeatedly denied that he had any past history of diabetes and hypertension.”

On 21 Oct. 2010, Manansala filed a Complaint against the respondents for total and permanent disability benefits. Two months after he filed his complaint, Dr. San Luis, issued a medical opinion stating that Manansala must be considered permanently disabled. The same opinion indicated that Manansala admitted to having had a long history of hypertension and diabetes.

Is Manansala entitled to total and permanent disability benefits occasioned by work-related illnesses?

A: NO. Manansala is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Sec. 20(E) of the POEA-SEC bars the compensability of disability arising from pre-existing illness when attended by an Ee’s fraudulent misrepresentation. Petitioner knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented himself as not afflicted with hypertension and diabetes during his PEME and after repatriation while being treated by the company-designated physician. (Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 208314, 23 Aug. 2017)

When a Seafarer May be Allowed to Pursue an Action for Total or Permanent Disability Benefits

• The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;
• 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company-designated physician;
• The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the third doctor jointly agreed upon under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
• The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his Er, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
• The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
• The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor jointly selected under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
• The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the Er refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
• The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods. (C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, G.R. No. 193679, 18 July 2012)

Q: Mabunay was hired by Sharpe Sea as an oiler for a period of 9 months. A day after boarding, Mabunay slipped and hit his back on the purifier, while he was cleaning. When he awoke, his back was numb and he had difficulty getting up. Despite the persistent pain in his back, Mabunay continued working for 2 days, until the Chief Engineer allowed him to have a medical checkup when the ship docked in Nanjing, China. He was declared unfit to work by his attending physician and was eventually repatriated.

On 30 Apr. 2009, Mabunay reported to Sharpe Sea's office and was told to report to a company- designated physician. He was diagnosed with "Cervical Spondylosis; Thoracolumbar Spondylosis; and Mild chronic compression fracture". The doctor recommended that Mabunay undergo a discectomy. On 24 Nov. 2009, Mabunay underwent surgery and was observed that he "tolerated the procedure well.”

Mabunay filed a complaint against Sharpe Sea, Monte Carlo, and Florem for the payment of his total disability benefits Mabunay sought the opinion of third doctor, who opined that he was unfit to work as a seaman in his present condition.

The LA ruled in Mabunay's favor and directed Sharpe Sea to pay him permanent and total disability benefits. It rejected Sharpe Sea's claim that its company-designated physicians assessed Mabunay with a disability rating of Grade 8 since it was not supported by the records. The NLRC upheld the LA's findings that the records were bereft of evidence to support Sharpe Sea's claim.

On 29 Nov. 2011, the NLRC modified its decision by reducing the award of US$60,000.00 it earlier granted to Mabunay, to US$16,795.00, corresponding to a Grade 8 disability rating. The NLRC noted that Sharpe Sea attached a medical report dated 18 Aug. 2009 from Dr. Cruz, which supported its claim that a company-designated physician had diagnosed Mabunay with a Grade 8 disability. Is Mabunay entitled to permanent and total disability benefits?

A: YES. With the company-designated physicians' failure to issue either a fit-to-work certification or a final disability rating within the prescribed periods, respondent's disability was rightfully deemed to be total and permanent.

A company-designated physician is expected to come up with a definite assessment of a seafarer's fitness or lack of fitness to work or to determine the seafarer's degree of disability within a period of 120 or 240 days from repatriation. Clearly, Dr. Cruz, Dr. Castillo, or any other company-designated physician failed to issue respondent either a fit-to- work certification or a final disability rating after his operation and before the lapse of 240 days from his repatriation.

Nonetheless, even if this Court accepted petitioners' explanation on the belated submission of the disability rating into evidence, it is worthy to note that Dr. Cruz only issued an interim disability rating. It has been settled in Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz (G.R. No. 204769, 06 June 2016) that an interim disability grading is merely an initial prognosis and does not provide sufficient basis for an award of disability benefits. (Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay, Jr., G.R. No. 206113, 06 Nov. 2017)

Third-Doctor Referral

If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician's assessment, the employer and the seafarer may jointly agree on a third doctor, whose decision shall be final and binding on them. Where the company-designated physician has issued a timely, final assessment, failure to pursue the third-doctor procedure may make that assessment controlling, unless the employer frustrates the referral; the procedure does not cure the absence of a timely, definitive company assessment. (Gargallo v. Dohle Seafront Crewing, G.R. No. 215551, 17 Aug. 2016)

NOTE: The Third Physician Rule has no application when the company-designated physician fails to make a final, categorical and definitive assessment within the 120-day treatment period, or within a justified extension of up to 240 days. (Alpines v. Elburg Shipmanagement Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 202114, 09 Nov. 2016)

Guidelines in Cases Where a Seafarer Claiming Disability Benefits Requests for a Third Doctor Referral (part 2 of 2)

Ventura filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits. Crewtech argued that the failure to observe the procedure for the joint appointment of a third doctor negates the claim for the disability benefits. Is Ventura entitled?

A. NO. While the seafarer is not irrevocably bound by the findings of the company-designated physician as he is allowed to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice, Sec. 20-A(3) thereof further provides that any disagreement in the findings may be referred to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties, whose findings shall be final and binding between them. The non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third doctor would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.

Considering that Ventura failed to observe the conflict-resolution procedure provided under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the Court is inclined to uphold the opinion of the company-designated physician that Ventura's illnesses were not work-related, hence, not compensable.

Q: Toquero was employed by Crossworld as a fitter for a vessel for 7 months. He underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was declared fit for sea duty. While on board the vessel, Toquero was assaulted by his fellow seafarer, Fong.

According to Toquero, he and Fong were instructed by the master of the vessel to check and repair a generator. While repairing, Toquero advised Fong not to remove the flanges which irked Fong, and recalled their prior altercation and challenged him to a fistfight. He ignored Fong and continued working when suddenly Fong hit the back of his head with a large metal spanner, knocking him unconscious. He was given first aid treatment at the ship clinic, where his vital signs were monitored.

Toquero's assessment showed that his physical discomfort was due to trauma and skull defect. His Medical Evaluation Report read that Toquero became incapacitated because of the serious head injury that he incurred on board; he has a large bone defect which may pose further damage to his brain; contusion of the brain tissue also occurred at the site of the skull fracture. At this time, he is no longer allowed to engage in heavy physical activities. The ship's environment is also dangerous to him because of the unsteady state of the vessel when sailing at high seas. Dizziness may set anytime and may result to fall, which may cause further irreparable injury.

Because of the impediment, he is permanently unfit to return to work as a seaman in any capacity and considered for total permanent disability. Is Toquero's injury compensable?

A: YES. A disability is compensable under the POEA- SEC if two elements are present:

• The injury or illness must be work-related; and
• The injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.

Hence, a claimant must establish the causal connection between the work and the illness or injury sustained.

Here, the two (2) elements of a work-related injury are present. Not only was petitioner's injury work- related, but it was also sustained during the term of his employment contract. His injury, therefore, is compensable.

Respondents' argument that the claim is precluded because the injury is due to the willful acts of another seafarer is untenable. The POEA-SEC disqualifies claims caused by the willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties done by the claimant, not by the assailant. It is highly unjust to preclude a seafarer's disability claim because of the assailant's willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duty. (Toquero v. Crossworld Marine Services, et al., G.R. No. 213482, 26 June 2019)

Q: Ventis Maritime Corporation (VMC) hired Cayabyab on behalf of its foreign principal, St. Paul Maritime Corporation (SPMC), to work as a wiper on board one of its vessels. Cayabyab underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) where he was declared fit for sea duty. In fulfilling his work, Cayabyab claimed he skipped meals to assist other crew members. He also experienced erratic sleeping patterns aggravated by poor nutrition. He began talking to himself and recited bible verses out of nowhere. He was then brought to a psychiatric clinic where he was diagnosed with Occupational Stress Disorder and recommended his immediate repatriation on the ground of "acute psychosis.”

Upon Cayabyab's arrival in the Philippines, VMC referred him to the company-designated physician, who endorsed him to a psychiatrist at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). The psychiatrist prescribed him medication for schizophrenia and advised him to return to work. During his follow-up check-up on said date, the psychiatrist declared that Cayabyab had a brief psychotic episode. Subsequently, the company-designated physician issued a Grade 6 Disability Assessment. Cayabyab thus filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. Months after the filing of the complaint, Cayabyab sought a second opinion from his personal physician, Dr. Elias D. Adamos, who declared him to be suffering from total and permanent disability.

The LA awarded Cayabyab total and permanent disability benefits. On the other hand, the NLRC held that VMC is liable to pay Cayabyab only partial disability benefits corresponding to Grade 6 rating under the Amended POEA-SEC. On appeal, the CA upheld the findings of the company-designated physician who classified Cayabyab's mental disorder as a partial disability with a Grade 6 rating. It also held the local agency VMC and its foreign principal SPMC solidarity liable for the payment of Grade 6 disability benefits owing to Cayabyab, based on the parties’ CBA.

Can Cayabyab claim partial disability benefits under the CBA?

A: NO. Cayabyab cannot claim partial disability benefits under the alleged CBA.

There are three requisites which a seafarer declared to be suffering from a disability, whether permanent or partial, must prove to establish his or her entitlement to superior disability benefits under the CBA. First, the existence of the CBA; second, the seafarer's employment contract is covered by the CBA, i.e., the CBA is in effect or had not yet lapsed at the time of the seafarer's employment; and third, that the seafarer complied with the conditions stipulated in the applicable CBA for the claimed benefit. Under the CBA invoked in Cayabyab, this included proof that the disability arose from an accident on board the vessel.

Cayabyab cannot claim disability benefits under the CBA owing to the following reasons: 1) He failed to prove its existence; 2) He failed to establish that his employment contract is covered by the supposed CBA; and 3) He failed to adduce evidence to show that his disability arose from an accident.

The award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions, and conjectures. While the CBA is a labor contract that must be logically and liberally construed in favor of Filipino seafarers, still the rule is that "justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.

Thus, Cayabyab is entitled to disability benefits corresponding to Grade 6 disability rating under the Amended POEA-SEC, and not the CBA. (Ventis Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Cayabyab, G.R. No. 239257, 21 June 2021)

DEATH BENEFITS

GR: The seafarer’s death should occur during the term of his employment. (Sec. 20(B), 2010 POEA-SEC)

XPN: The seafarer’s death occurring after the termination of his employment due to his medical repatriation on account of a work-related injury or illness. This exception arises from jurisprudence construing the 2000 POEA-SEC, rather than from Sec. 20(B) of the 2010 POEA-SEC.

Work-Related Death of the Seafarer During the Term of Their Contract

The Er shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to:

• The amount of $50,000; and
• An additional amount of $7,000 to each child under the age of 21 but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. (Sec. 20-B(1), 2010 POEA–SEC)

Where Death is Caused by Warlike Activity While Sailing Within a Declared War Zone or War Risk Area

The compensation payable shall be doubled. The Er shall undertake appropriate war zone insurance coverage for this purpose.

NOTE: It is understood and agreed that the benefits mentioned above shall be separate and distinct from, and will be in addition to whatever benefits which the seafarer is entitled to under Philippine laws from the SSS, OWWA, ECP, PHIC and Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund). (Sec. 20(B)(2), 2010 POEA–SEC)

Other Liabilities of the Employer When the Seafarer Dies as a Result of Work – Related Injury or Illness During the Term of Employment (O-R-B)

• The Er shall pay the deceased’s beneficiary all outstanding Obligations due the seafarer under this Contract;
• The Er shall transport the Remains and personal effects of the seafarer to the Philippines at Er’s expense except if the death occurred in a port where local government laws or regulations do not permit the transport of such remains. In case death occurs at sea, the disposition of the remains shall be handled or dealt with in accordance with the master’s best judgment. In all cases, the Er/master shall communicate with the manning agency to advise for disposition of seafarer’s remains; and
• The Er shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of $1,000 for Burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. (Sec. 20-B(4), 2010 POEA-SEC)

When is There No Compensation and Benefits to be Payable in Respect of an Injury, Incapacity, Disability or Death of a Seafarer

No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer when it is the result of his:

• Willful or criminal act; or
• Intentional breach of his duties

Provided, that the Er can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability, or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.

Q: Rodolfo L. Racelis was recruited and hired by respondent United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) for its principal, respondent Holland America Lines, Inc. (HAL) to serve as "Demi Chef De Partie" on board the vessel MS Prinsendam.

In the course of his last employment contract, Rodolfo experienced severe pain in his ears and high blood pressure causing him to collapse while in the performance of his duties. He consulted a doctor in Argentina and was medically repatriated on for further medical treatment.

Upon arrival in Manila, he was immediately brought to Medical City, Pasig City, where he was seen by a company-designated physician, Dr. Gerardo Legaspi, and was diagnosed to be suffering from Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation. He underwent surgery twice for the said ailment but developed complications and died. Rodolfo’s surviving spouse sought to claim death benefits but to no avail.

Is petitioner entitled to death benefits?

A: YES. Among other basic provisions, the POEA- SEC stipulates that the beneficiaries of a deceased seafarer may be able to claim death benefits for as long as they are able to establish that (a) the seafarer’s death is work-related, and (b) such death had occurred during the term of his employment contract.

While it is true that Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation is not listed as an occupational disease under Sec. 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, Sec. 20-B(4) of the same explicitly provides that “the liabilities of the Er when the seafarer suffers work- related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: those illnesses not listed in Sec. 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work related.”

Period to File OFW Claims

Under Sec. 30 of the 2010 POEA-SEC, claims arising from the contract must be made within three years from the date the cause of action arises. Consistently, Art. 306 [291] of the LC provides for 3 years to file money claims arising from Er-Ee relations.

Q: On 28 Feb. 2006, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay), the local manning agent of Princess Cruise Lines, Limited, hired Bernardine De Jesus as an Accommodation Supervisor for the cruise ship Regal Princess. On 09 Mar. 2006, Bernardine boarded Regal Princess and he eventually disembarked 10 months later, or on 16 Jan. 2007, after his contract of employment ended. Bernardine was soon diagnosed with Aortic Aneurysm and on 15 Mar. 2007, he had a coronary angiography.

On 21 Mar. 2007, he underwent a Left Axillofemoral Bypass. He died on 26 Mar. 2007. Cynthia, Bernardine’s widow claimed that her husband suffered chest pains while he was still aboard the Regal Princess. She claimed that he had reported his condition, but he was not provided with medical attention. Furthermore, he had also asked for medical attention upon his repatriation, but his request was once again denied.

Is Bernardine’s widow entitled to death benefits?

A: YES. Bernardine's widow is entitled to death benefits. Sec. 20 (A) of the POEA-SEC requires that for a seafarer to be entitled to death benefits, he must have suffered a work-related death during the term of his contract.

However, Sec. 32-A of the POEA-SEC acknowledges the possibility of “compensation for the death of the seafarer occurring after the employment contract on account of a work-related illness” if the following conditions are met:

• The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
• The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
• The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
• There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

Both labor tribunals found that Bernardine first experienced chest pains while he was still onboard the cruise ship, i.e., during the term of his employment contract. It was likewise established that while Bernardine requested medical attention when he started to feel ill and upon his repatriation, his requests were repeatedly ignored.

This Court concurs with the Labor Arbiter's observation that it was improbable for Bernardine to have developed and died from a cardio-vascular disease within the two short months following his repatriation. (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 203943, 30 Aug. 2017)

Benefit for Dependent Children

For Employees’ Compensation benefits, each dependent child, not exceeding five (5), counted from the youngest and without substitution, shall be entitled to ten percent of the monthly income benefit of the Ee. This rule, however, shall not apply to causes of action which accrued before 1 May 1978. (Sec. 4, Rule XI, Amended Rules on EC)

Separately, under the 2010 POEA-SEC, each child below 21 years old receives US$7,000 in death benefits, up to four children. (Sec. 20(A)(2), 2010 POEA-SEC)

Q: Ronnie was a “third engineer officer" on board the vessel for a period of 10 months. On 13 Oct. 2010, petitioner complained of severe stomach pains and was confined in Singapore. A day after, Dr. Noel Yao, his attending physician, declared him to be fit to rejoin the vessel with rest on board for three more days. When his condition did not improve, he was recommended for repatriation.

He arrived in Manila on 17 Oct. 2010. The following day, he was referred for a medical check-up at the company's accredited clinic where the company physician, diagnosed him as suffering from "cholecystlithiasis and r/o pancreatic pseudo cyst," with a recommendation for surgery. About four months later, or exactly 134 days from his arrival in Manila, he again underwent an examination. This time, he was declared by the company physician, as "fit to work”.

Ronnie filed a complaint against his contracting agency for the payment of his disability benefits, sickness allowance, refund of medical expenses, as well as damages and attorney's fees alleging that he contracted the illness during the term of his employment contract, he maintained that his illness was work-related. Will his claim prosper?

A: NO. The mere lapse of the 120-day period under Art. 198(c)(1) of the LC does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for a claim of PTD benefits.

The seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the Er to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.

In the present case, since no declaration as to Ronnie’s fitness to work or as to the permanent and total status of his disability was made within the 120-day period and his sickness required medical treatment beyond the 120-day period, the temporary total disability period was extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of his Er to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.

In this connection, it must be emphasized that the facts show that Ronnie never presented any declaration to the effect that his disability is total and permanent. A recommendation to undergo surgery does not necessarily prove that petitioner was not fit to work. Rather, such recommendation merely proves that further medical treatment is needed. (Singson v. Arktis Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 214542, 13 Jan. 2021, as penned by J. Hernando)