Fred Olsen Cruise Lines, Ltd., through its local agent Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., hired the seafarer in 2008 to work as a casino attendant. After working with said employer on two occasions in 2008 to 2009, the seafarer re-boarded the M/S Braemer on 1 August 2009 to work as a senior casino attendant.
In February 2010, the seafarer experienced profuse and consistent bleeding, extreme dizziness, and difficulty in breathing. She went to the ship’s clinic and was given medication. The next day, she experienced severe headache. She again went to the ship’s clinic and was prescribed a different medication. She claims that since her headache worsened after taking the said medication, she stopped taking the same.
The bleeding of the seafarer intensified. She was later advised by the ship’s physician to rest. However, her condition did not improve, so she was taken to a clinic in Barbados. A transvaginal ultrasound conducted on the seafarer revealed that she had two ovarian cysts. She returned to the ship and was assigned to perform light duties.
On 20 March 2010, the seafarer was medically repatriated to the Philippines.
On 22 March 2010, the seafarer was placed under the care of the company-designated physician (an obstetrician-gynecologist). Said physician found that the seafarer had “Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Secondary to an Adenomyosis with Adenomyoma.” The seafarer underwent endometrial dilatation and curettage as part of her treatment.
The company-designated physician was unable to declare the fitness of the seafarer for work by the end of the 120-day period from medical repatriation on 10 March 2010. However, the said physician was able to declare that the seafarer’s fitness to resume sea duties within the 240-day period from said repatriation.
On 8 September 2010, the seafarer filed a complaint to claim permanent disability benefits based on the collective bargaining agreement she signed.
Although the Office of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the seafarer, the Court of Appeals reversed the award. The Court of Appeals found that the seafarer failed to provide substantial evidence to prove her allegation that her illness was work-related. Said court gave greater weight to the findings of the company-designated physician, holding that the latter had acquired detailed knowledge and was familiar with the seafarer’s medical condition.
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
It stated that the seafarer should fulfill the following requisites for a grant of her claim for disability benefits, to wit:
(1) She suffered an illness;
(2) She suffered this illness during the term of her employment contract;
(3) She complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract;1Section 20 (B) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract provides:
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
x x x
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.
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.
Note: The present version of the above provision can be seen in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, October 26, 2010), as follows:
SECTION 20. Compensation and Benefits. —
A. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness
x x x
3. x x x
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. 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.
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.
(4) Her illness is one of the occupational diseases within the Standard Employment Contract,2Please refer to Section 32-A of the 2000 (as well as the 2010) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract or her illness or injury is otherwise work-related;3The 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract defines work-related illness as:
Definition of Terms:
x x x
12. Work-Related Illness — 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.
Section 20 (B) of the Standard Employment Contract provides:
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
x x x
4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.
Note: The present version of the above provision can be seen in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, October 26, 2010), as follows:
Definition of Terms:
x x x
16. Work-Related Illness — any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.
x x x
SECTION 20. Compensation and Benefits. —
A. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness
x x x
4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related. and
(5) She complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A4Section 32-A of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract provides:
SECTION 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. — 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;
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Note: The cited provision below also appears in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. of the Standard Employment Contract for an occupational disease, or a disputably-presumed work-related disease, to be compensable.
In the present case, the first four requisites appear to have been met.
In February 2010, the seafarer experienced bleeding during her employment on board the M/S Braemer. The seafarer was medically repatriated to the Philippines and was able to visit the company-designated physician. Said physician thereafter diagnosed the seafarer as suffering from adenomyoma.
Although adenomyoma is not included in the list of occupational diseases under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, the said contract, nevertheless, provides that those illnesses not listed therein are disputably presumed as work-related.
However, it appears that the seafarer was unable to fulfill the fifth requisite.
The Court clarified that while the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work onboard the vessel and the contracted or aggravated illness. The seafarer cannot argue that he does not have the burden to prove that his illness was work-related because it is disputably presumed by law. The seafarer cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.
In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled. It must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. According to the Court, concomitant with this presumption is the burden placed upon the seafarer to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused the disease, or at least increased the risk of contracting the same. Only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, is required to establish compensability of illnesses not included in the list of occupational diseases.
In the present case, the Court found no substantial evidence establishing the relation between the seafarer’s work and the illness she contracted.
The Court also noted that there was no showing that the seafarer’s adenomyoma was pre-existing, thus it was not able to determine whether the adenomyoma was aggravated by the nature of her employment.
The Court acknowledged the seafarer’s arguments that her illness is the result of her “constantly walking upward and downward on board the vessel carrying loads” and that she “acquired her illness on board the employer’s vessel during the term of her employment as a casino attendant.” However, the Court found that the seafarer did not discuss the duties of a casino attendant. She failed to show the causation between walking, carrying heavy loads, and adenomyoma. She merely asserted that since her illness developed while she was on board the vessel, it was work-related.
The Court accordingly ruled that it had no means to determine whether the illness of the seafarer was work-related or work-aggravated, since the latter did not describe the nature of her employment as a casino attendant.
In view of the seafarer’s failure to fulfill the requisites of compensability, the Court ruled against the grant of the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.
Further reading:
- Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016.
Check Out My Latest YouTube Video:
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
