Seafarers Guide

Good day followers!

Thank you for keeping our page active. As a token of appreciation, I am offering free legal advice for any of your legal concerns regarding your seafaring employment. Do not hesitate to leave a Direct Message and I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Mabuhay ang mga Filipinong Marino!

Simula pa noong 2018-2019 nakikipaglaban na tayo sa mga batas na gusto ipasa ng mga congressman in the guise of representing the Seafarers but in reality they are protecting the agency and shipowners. You may remember that a bill was passed by ANGKLA partylist. They proposed that in every successful case of an injured or illed seafarer from the labor arbiter, voluntary arbitrator or nlrc commission will require the company to escrow the award until the case if finally decided by the Supreme Court. Atty. Rogelio De Guzman, the President of IBP Manila III questioned the said bill and it was strucked down.

However, in this admistration with the endorsement of Senator Tulfo and other Senators they successfully inserted another version of the escrow. In the Magna Carta for Seafarers Law, in case a seafarer wins a case and an award was given to him, he will be required to post a bond to execute pending appeal by the manning and its principal. This is an encroachment to the power of the Supreme Court as it has the sole power to:

"Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged."

Requiring a bond in order to execute an award is a clear violation of the rules of procedure which is within the Jusrisdiction of the Supreme Court and not of the legislature.

Moreover, it is very ironic to state in the said law that only a lawyer will represent the seafarer in a case but there are members of the Voluntary Arbitration of DOLE who are not lawyers themselves. Imagine a non-lawyer will serve as a judge in a seafarers injury or illness case.

You must carefully read the provisions of the said law and decide for yourselves if it is really for the protection of the seafarers and not that of the Manning and its principal.

Attached herein are the copies of the Angkla Proposed Bill and the 2019 Letter of the IBP Manila III President to the Supreme Court to give you an idea how this provision was scrambled and made it to the Magna Carta For Seafarers Law.

Its about time that the POEA SEC be amended!!

Even the lawyers abroad observed that the POEA SEC is not commensurate to the needs of the Filipino Seafarers.

Our condolences to the Two Filipino Seafarers who loss their lives on board.

TikTok · Spencer Aronfeld 1746 likes, 162 comments. “Attention TikTok fam! Did you know that the crew member who tragically passed away on a Holland America ship may have some benefits for their surviving family? The government's POEA law offers support for overseas workers, find out more! Filipino Cr...

Is the company liable for the injuries sustained by a seafarer while playing basketball on-board the vessel? Is the Injury Work-Related?

Read this article and you will find out the answer! Enjoy!

Remember:
BUNKHOUSE DOCTRINE
PERSONAL COMFORT DOCTRINE

Supreme Court Upholds Disability Claims of Seafarer Injured while Playing Basketball
November 9, 2023
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. (Wilhelmsen Manning), its principal Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd. (WSML), and Fausto R. Preysler, Jr.

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.

After petitioner was medically repatriated to the Philippines, he was referred to Wilhelmsen Manning’s company-designated physicians for an initial evaluation. A magnetic resonance imaging of his injured ankle showed a severely attenuated Achilles tendon consistent with high-grade partial tear.

On February 6, 2017, Arguilles underwent surgery to repair his ankle. The clinical abstract showed that he was diagnosed with “High Grade Achilles Tendon Tear, Left.” Between February 13, 2017 and June 23, 2017, he underwent 49 physical therapy sessions at a clinic to which he was referred by Wilhelmsen Manning. After Wilhelmsen Manning terminated his treatment allegedly because his work-related injury was too severe to be resolved within 120 days, Arguilles consulted an independent physician who then declared him unfit for duty.

When his request for disability benefits from respondents went unheeded, Arguilles filed a complaint before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.

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. On appeal, the NLRC initially maintained the finding of disability in Arguilles’ favor, but reduced the amount awarded him by the Labor Arbiter. Respondents moved to reconsider, which prompted the NLRC to completely reverse its findings and order the dismissal of Arguilles’ claims. The CA affirmed the NLRC.

In granting Arguilles’ petition, the Supreme Court stressed that the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC), in conjunction with the collective bargaining agreement between the Norwegian Shipowners; Association and the Association of Marine Officers; and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines and the Norwegian Seafarers’ Union (NSA-AMOSUP/NSU CBA), which, in turn, governs the relationship between Arguilles and respondents, serves as the main basis for Arguilles’ claims.

On the other hand, Section 2, Rule IV of Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 130, series of 2013 provides that the terms and conditions of seafarers’ employment shall be governed by the POEA SEC.

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.

The Court also said that an employer is duty-bound to provide a seaworthy ship for the seafarer and take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew, under Section 1(A)(4) of the POEA SEC.

“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, however, made it clear that not all injuries sustained by a seafarer on board a ship shall be compensable, as employers were never intended to be insurers against all accidental injuries their employees might incur while in the course of employment, “but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of work in the scope of the workmen’s employment or incidental to such employment, and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment.”

Citing Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC, which states that a seafarer shall be disqualified from receiving disability benefits of the employer is able to prove that: (1) the injury, incapacity, or disability is directly attributable to the seafarer; (2) the seafarer committed a crime or willful breach of duties; and (3) the causation between the injury, incapacity, or disability, and the crime or breach of duties, the Court said that the burden rests upon the respondents to prove by substantial evidence that the injury incurred by Arguilles during the course of his employment was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act.

In the case of Arguilles, he was “merely playing basketball, an employer-sanctioned activity onboard the vessel. It cannot be considered as a reckless or deliberate activity that is unmindful of one’s safety,” remarked the Court. “The records are bereft of any evidence, much less the slightest indication, that the injury suffered by [Arguilles] was intentionally or negligently incurred. Thus, his injury is worthy of compensation.”

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.

The Court likewise declared the corporate officers of Wilhelmsen Manning jointly and severally liable with Wilhelmsen Manning and WSML for the total judgment award, following the provision of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended, which states that if the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, its corporate officers, directors, and partners shall themselves be jointly and severally liable with the corporation or partnership for money claims. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)

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

254586 Rosell R. Arguilles Vs. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc./Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd., and Fausto R. Preysler, Jr. - Supreme Court of the Philippines Rosell R. Arguilles Vs. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc./Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd., and Fausto R. Preysler, Jr. G.R. No. 254586. July 10, 2023 [Date Uploaded: 10/23/2023] DOWNLOAD PDF FILE HERE