Seaman Law

Seaman Law We are a full-service firm with a client-centric view in finding legal solutions while serving the higher calling of our profession.

We understand our clients needs and resources in order to serve their best interest. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
NOTARY PUBLIC

28/05/2024

Republic Act No. 10706 “Seafarers Protection Act” of 2015
###
SEC. 4. Imposition of Excessive Fees. — When any contract or arrangement between a seafarer or his/her heirs, and a person who appears for or represents them in any case for recovery of monetary claim or benefit, including legal interest, arising from accident, illness or death before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or any labor arbiter, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) or its regional offices, or other quasi-judicial bodies handling labor disputes stipulates that the person who appears for or represents them shall be entitled to fees, such fees shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the compensation or benefit awarded to the seafarer or his/her heirs.

For purposes of this Act, fees referred to in this section shall mean the total amount of compensation of the person who appears for or represents the seafarer, or his/her heirs for services rendered.
###

09/04/2024

MANILA – Two lawmakers on Thursday called for the immediate passage of the proposed Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers following the death of two Filipino seafarers in a recent attack by Houthi rebels on a cargo vessel off Yemen. House Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs chairperson and Kabayan.....

23/03/2024

SC Voids Contract for Being Grossly Disadvantageous to Seafarer |

The Supreme Court has voided a litigation financing agreement between a seafarer and a consultancy firm for being grossly disadvantageous to the seafarer.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation (RODCO). The petition assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) award of damages in favor of RODCO.

In resolving the present petition, the Court evaluated the contract between Floserfino and RODCO and found it has the features of a litigation financing by a third party.

As previously held in the 2009 case of Nocom v. Camerino, a contract between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment, in consideration of receiving, if successful, a part of the proceeds is a champertous contract.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), champertous contracts between attorneys and their clients are prohibited for being against public policy. While the definition of a champertous contract under the CPRA appears to contemplate an agreement between a lawyer and a party, the Court is nevertheless not precluded from recognizing that the agreement of the parties in the present case is similar to a champertous contract.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-voids-contract-for-being-grossly-disadvantageous-to-seafarer/. Read G.R. No. 259832 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259832-rodco-consultancy-and-maritime-services-corporation-herein-represented-by-froilan-g-clemente-jr-vs-floserfino-g-ross-and-antonia-t-ross/.

18/11/2023

SC Upholds Disability Claims of Seafarer Injured while Playing Basketball

On December 26, 2016, Arguilles, employed as an Ordinary Seaman by Wilhelmsen Manning on behalf of WSML on board the vessel M/V Toronto, suffered an injury in his left ankle while he was playing basketball with his work colleagues in their free time.

### ### ###

The Labor Arbiter decided in Arguilles’ favor and ordered respondents to pay the latter the amount of US$90,000 plus moral and exemplary damages in the amount of Php450,000

### ### ###

The Court noted that the POEA SEC defines a work-related injury as an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment,” which does not require that a seafarer must suffer an injury while he or she is in actual performance of his or her duties. The Court added that Section 2(A) of the POEA SEC likewise provides that a seafarer’s contract of employment shall be effective until his or her date of arrival at the point of hire, upon termination of his or her employment.

### ### ###

“It is beyond cavil that petitioner’s injury was sustained while his employment contract was still in effect and while he was still on board M/V Toronto. Accordingly, he suffered his injury in the course of his employment. This squarely falls within the POEA SEC’s definition of a work-related injury,” ruled the Court.

### ### ###

The Court further held that in any event, Arguilles’ entitlement to full disability benefits had already lapsed by operation of law. Since no certification as to Arguilles’ condition was issued by the company-designated physician within the 120-day and 240-day periods contemplated by the Court in Elburg Shipmanagement Phils. v. Quiogue, Jr. on claims for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, his condition had already lapsed into total and permanent disability.

--G.R. No. 254586 (Arguilles v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc./Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd., and Preysler, Jr., July 10, 2023)

13/11/2023

SC Upholds Disability Claims of Seafarer Injured while Playing Basketball |

The Supreme Court has ordered a ship management company and its corporate officers to pay US$90,000 as total and permanent disability benefits to its seafarer employee who suffered an injury while playing basketball on board a ship during his free time.

In a 21-page Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Court granted the petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Rosell R. Arguilles (Arguilles) which sought to annul and set aside the January 24, 2020 Decision and November 9, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The said issuances of the CA affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Resolution which, in turn, reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter in favor of Arguilles in a complaint for disability benefits against his former employer, respondents Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., its principal Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd., and Fausto R. Preysler, Jr.

Arguilles, a Seaman, suffered an ankle injury on December 26, 2016, while playing basketball on board the vessel M/V Toronto. Despite medical repatriation and surgery, his disability claims which were initially granted by the Labor Arbiter was later reversed by the NLRC, a decision affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of Arguilles, emphasizing that playing basketball was an employer-sanctioned activity and not a reckless or deliberate act, making the injury compensable. The Court emphasized the relevance of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract and the collective bargaining agreement in determining Arguilles' claims, stating that the injury fell within the definition of a work-related injury. Additionally, the Court highlighted the duty of employers to provide a seaworthy ship and take precautions to prevent accidents and injuries to the crew, as outlined in the POEA SEC.

The Court also held that Arguilles' entitlement to full disability benefits had lapsed due to the absence of a certification within specified periods, and it declared the corporate officers jointly and severally liable with the ship management company for the total judgment award, citing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-upholds-disability-claims-of-seafarer-injured-while-playing-basketball/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254586-rosell-r-arguilles-vs-wilhelmsen-smith-bell-manning-inc-wilhelmsen-ship-management-ltd-and-fausto-r-preysler-jr/.

01/11/2015

Fitness for work shall be determined; 120 or 240 days
“The procedure is as follows: when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. The physician has 120 days, or 240 days, if validly extended, to make the assessment.” Noriel R. Montierro vs Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015

13/10/2015

Presumption of work-relation; Company doctor must make categorical finding of non work-relation

JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO, AND/OR HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELL SCHAFT, v. ELENO A. BABOL G.R. No. 204076, December 04, 2013

“As a general rule, the principle of work-relation requires that the disease in question must be one of those listed as an occupational disease under Sec. 32-A of the POEA-SEC. Nevertheless, should it be not classified as occupational in nature, Section 20 (B) paragraph 4 of the POEA-SEC15 provides that such diseases are disputably presumed as work-related.

In this case, it is undisputed that NPC afflicted respondent while on board the petitioners’ vessel. As a non-occupational disease, it has the disputable presumption of being work-related. This presumption obviously works in the seafarer’s favor. Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the employers, the work-relatedness of the disease must be sustained.

In this wise, the petitioners, as employers, failed to disprove the presumption of NPC’s work-relatedness. They primarily relied on the medical report issued by Dr. Co Peña. The report, however, failed to make a categorical statement confirming the total absence of work relation.”(JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO, AND/OR HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELL SCHAFT, v. ELENO A. BABOL G.R. No. 204076, December 04, 2013)

04/10/2015

No declaration of fitness or permanent total disability within 120-240; Permanent total disability regardless of grade

"In Alpha Ship Management Corporation v. Calo,47 it was held that an employee’s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 240-day treatment period under Article 192 (c) (1) of the Labor Code48 and Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation Commission,49 while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability. This is true regardless of whether the employee loses the use of any part of his body or if the injury or disability is classified as Grade 1 under the PO EA-SEC.(C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. vs. JOEL D. TAOK, ,G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012)

04/10/2015

Work-relation; cardiovascular disease; heart ailments compensable;

"In many cases decided in the past, this Court has held that cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and other heart ailments are compensable. Thus, in Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta,28 severe 3-vessel coronary artery disease which the seaman contracted while serving as Able Seaman was considered an occupational disease. In Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc.,29 it was held that the 2000 POEA-SEC considers heart disease as an occupational disease. In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag,30 the Court held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease may be a compensable illness, upon proof. In Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol31 and Heirs of the late Aniban v. National Labor Relations Commission,32 it was held that myocardial infarction as a disease or cause of death is compensable, such being occupational. Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.33 held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease/coronary artery disease and chronic stable angina are compensable. Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor34 stated that a finding of coronary artery disease entitles the claimant – a seaman Third Officer – to disability compensation. In Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,35 the Court held that the claimant – a musician on board an ocean-going vessel – was entitled to recover for suffering from coronary artery disease. In Sepulveda v. Employees’ Compensation Commission,36 it was declared that the employee’s illness, myocardial infarction, was directly brought about by his employment as schoolteacher or was a result of the nature of such employment."(C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. vs. JOEL D. TAOK, ,G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012)

04/10/2015

Work relation; Causal connection; not necessary to prove with certainty;

“### it is not necessary that Taok prove with certainty that it was his work that caused his illness. As he displayed no signs of having any cardiovascular disease prior to being employed, it would suffice that there was evidence that he manifested the symptoms of his medical condition during his employment to show the probability of a causal relationship.” (C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. vs. JOEL D. TAOK, ,G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012)

25/08/2015

DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC. vs HEIRS OF ADRES G. GAZZINGAN, G.R. No. 199568

“It must also be pointed out that Gazzingan was in good health and fit to work when he was engaged by petitioners to work on board the vessel M/V Gloria. His PEME showed essentially normal findings with no hypertension and without any heart problems. It was only while rendering duty that he experienced symptoms. This is supported by a medical report issued by Cartagena de Indias Hospital in Colombia stating that Gazzingan suffered intense chest and back pains, shortness of breath and a slightly elevated blood pressure while performing his duties. Therefore, even assuming that Gazzingan had a pre-existing condition, as alleged by petitioners, this does not totally negate the probability and the possibility that his aortic dissection was aggravated by his work conditions. The stress caused by his job actively contributed to the progression and aggravation of his illness. In compensation cases, “[i]t is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee 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.”

Address

2nd Floor, MGC Building 697 M. L. Quezon Street
Mandaue City
6014

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Tuesday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Wednesday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Thursday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Saturday 8:30am - 12pm

Telephone

+639175519318

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Seaman Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Seaman Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category