Three-day Rule

The three-day rule must be observed by all those

claiming disability benefits, including seafarers who
disembarked upon the completion of contract.
Respondent was barred for claiming disability benefits for
inexplicably breaching this requirement (Scanmar Maritime
Services, Inc. v. De Leon, G.R. No.199977, 25 January 2017).

Injury must have been acquired during the term of

the contract
Seafarers must show that they experienced health problems
while at sea, the circumstances under which they developed
the illness, as we as the symptoms associated with it. In the
absence of medical check-up in foreign ports, report of any
illness or injury to the master of the vessel or the ship
doctor, request a post-medical examination after
disembarkation, and documentation of bouts of sickness,
injury or illness associated with the illness, it cannot be
reasonably concluded that respondent contracted
radiculopathy during the term of his contract (Scanmar
Maritime Services, Inc. v. De Leon, G.R. No.199977, 25
January 2017).

Work-relation of Illness
Seafarers claiming disability benefits must prove that there
is a reasonable causal connection between their ailment and
the work for which they have been contracted. The labor
courts must determine their actual work, the nature of their
ailment, and other factors that may lead to the conclusion
that they contracted a work-related injury. Failure to show
before the labor tribunals the functions as a seafarer, as well
as the nature of his ailment, none of the courts can rightfully
deduce any reasonable causal connection between his
ailment and the work for which he was contracted.

De Leon neither specified his duties as a seafarer throughout

his employment, nor defined the purported physical
activities or any piece of evidence detailing his work
(Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. De Leon, G.R.
No.199977, 25 January 2017).

The proximity of the development of the injury to the time of

disembarkation does not automatically prove work
causation. The blanket speculation that since the respondent
worked for 22 years it then follows that his injury was caused
by his engagement as a seafarer will not rise to the level of
substantial evidence (Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. De
Leon, G.R. No.199977, 25 January 2017).

Schedule of Disabilities
The schedule of disabilities under Section 32 is in no way
exclusive. Section 20.B.4 of the same POEA Standard
Employment Contract clearly provides that "[t]hose illnesses
not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably
presumed as work related." This provision only means that
the disability schedule also contemplates injuries not
explicitly listed under it.

Complainant had corneal scar, a cystic macula and 30% loss

of vision on his left eye. Although the illness is not listed
under Section 32, he is still entitled to Grade 12 of disability
benefits (Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No.
184256, 18 January 2017).

Period to assess disability benefits

The company-designated physician is given an additional
120 days, or a total of 240 days from repatriation, to give
the seafarer further treatment and, thereafter, make a
declaration as to the nature of the latter's disability.

In just 102 days from repatriation, the company-designated

physician had already given his final assessment on
respondent and gave a final disability rating of "Grade 11"
pursuant to the disability grading provided in the 2010 POEA-
SEC. This was not refuted by the independent physician.
Hence, it is plain error to award permanent and total
disability benefits to respondent (Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v.
Rapiz, G.R. No. 218871, 11 January 2017).

POEA-SEC is the law between the parties and, as such, its

provisions bind both of them. Under Section 20 (A) (6) of the
2010 POEASEC, the determination of the proper disability
benefits to be given to a seafarer shall depend on the
grading system provided by Section 32 of the said contract,
regardless of the actual number of days that the seafarer
underwent treatment. (Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, G.R.
No. 218871, 11 January 2017).

The assessment of the company designated physician is

more credible for having been arrived at after months of
medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the
assessment of a private physician done in one day on the
basis of an examination or existing medical records.
The findings of the company-designated physician should
prevail, considering that he examined, diagnosed, and
treated respondent from his repatriation on October 14,
2011 until he was assessed with a Grade 11 disability rating
on January 24, 2012; whereas the independent physician
only examined him sparingly on March 13, 2012 (Jebsens
Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, G.R. No. 218871, 11 January 2017).