Labor Refresher 2020

Atty. Paciano F. Fallar Jr.

SSCR-CoL

Notes on
OFW Seafarers'
Sickness, Disability , & Death Benefits

Justice Brion has a helpful summary of the legal regime on seafarers' compensation
claims (Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. G.R. NO. 172933 , 06 October 2008).

Entitlement to disability benefits by seamen on overseas work is a matter governed,

not only by medical findings but, by law and by contract. The material statutory
provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor
Code, in relation with Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of
the Labor Code. By contract, Department Order No. 4, series of 2000 of the
Department of Labor and Employment (the POEA Standard Employment Contract)
and the parties' CBA bind the seaman and his employer to each other.

By way of background, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through

the POEA, has simplified the determination of liability for work-related death, illness
or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working on foreign ocean-going
vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local
manning agency) are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract
as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment for overseas work. The POEA
Standard Employment Contract is supplemented by the CBA between the owner of
the vessel and the covered seamen.

Medical, sickness, and disability benefits under the

POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC)

Besides the benefits provided under the State Insurance Fund (SSS/ECC), the law
through the POEA under its rule-making power further provides the following benefits to
the overseas seafarers:

a) medical treatment to  the seafarer until declared fit or the degree of disability is
established;

b) sickness allowance equivalent to 120 days of his basic wage ;

1
c) permanent total or partial disability benefits;

d) death benefits

The employer  is liable for  these benefits under the  POEA Standard Employment

Contract (POEA-SEC) for any work-related illness or injury that the seafarer may
have suffered during the term of the contract. At present, it is Section 20 of the 2010
POEA SEC.

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or
illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

1 . The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time
he is on board the ship;

2. lf the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign

port, the employer 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. 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 employer until such
time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the
company-designated physician.

3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical

attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his
employer 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. 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. 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.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical
examination by a company-designated physician within three (3) 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

2
 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. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably

presumed as work-related.

5. In case a seafarer is disembarked from the ship for medical reasons, the
employer shall bear the full cost of repatriation in the event the seafarer is
declared (1) fit for repatriation; or (2) fit to work but the employer is unable to find
employment for the seafarer on board his former ship or another ship of the
employer.

6. 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 Section 32 of his Contract. Computation of his benefits
arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of
compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under
Section 32 of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number
of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness
allowance is paid.

7. 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 such as from the
Social Security System, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, Employees'
Compensation Commission, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and Home
Development Mutual Fund (Pag-lBIG Fund).

B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

1. In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract,
the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to the
amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of
Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty one
(21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during
the time of payment.

2. 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 employer
shall undertake appropriate war zone insurance coverage for this purpose.

3. 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 Social Security
System, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, Employee's Compensation
Commission, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and Home Development
Mutual Fund (Pag-lBIG Fund).

3
 4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of
work related injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:

a. The employer shall pay the deceased's beneficiary all outstanding obligations
due the seafarer under this Contract

b. The employer shall transport the remains and personal effects of the
seafarer to the Philippines at employer'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 employer/master shall communicate with the manning agency to advise for
disposition of seafarer's remains.

c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine currency
equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial
expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.

C. It is understood that computation of the total permanent or partial disability of

the seafarer caused by the injury sustained resulting from warlike activities within
the warzone area shall be based on the compensation rate payable within the
warzone area as prescribed in this Contract.

D. No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury,

incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or
criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the
employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly
attributable to the seafarer.

E. A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in

the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for
misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation
and benefits. This is likewise a just cause for termination of employment and
imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions.

F. When requested, the seafarer shall be furnished a copy of all pertinent

medical reports or any records at no cost to the seafarer.

G. The amounts paid to the seafarer due to accidental or natural death, or

permanent total disablement by virtue of the provisions of RA 8042 as amended by
RA 10022 [ MIGRANT WORKERS ACT as amended]. and its implementing rules
and regulations shall form part of and shall be deducted from the total amount
that the seafarer is determined to be finally entitled to under this Contract.

M. Subsistence allowance benefit as provided in RA 8042, as amended by

RA10022 The principal/employer/company shall grant to the seafarer who is
involved in a case or litigation for the protection of his rights in a foreign
country, a subsistence allowance of at least One Hundred United States Dollars
(US$100) per month for a maximum of six (6) months.

I. Compassionate Visit as provided in RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022. When

a seafarer is hospitalized and has been confined for at least seven (7)
consecutive days, he shall be entitled to a compassionate visit by one (1) family

4
 member or a requested individual. The employer shall pay for the
transportation cost of the family member or requested individual to the major
airport closest to the place of hospitalization of the seafarer. It is, however, the
responsibility of the family member or requested individual to meet all visa and travel
document requirements;

J. The seafarer or his successor in interest acknowledges that payment for injury,
illness, incapacity, disability or death and other benefits of the seafarer under this
contract and under RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022, shall cover all claims in
relation with or in the course of the seafarer's employment, including but not
limited to damages arising from the contract, tort, fault or negligence under the
laws of the Philippines or any other country.

Validity of POEA SEC

It has been held that the power of the POEA in requiring the standard model contract is
a valid delegation of legislative power as there is a sufficient standard guiding the
delegate in the exercise of the said authority. The Supreme Court said that the
standard was discoverable in the executive order itself which, in creating the POEA,
mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable
employment practices" (Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA, G.R. No. 76633 , 18 October 1988).

It must be stressed these claims are demandable from the employer and if refused,
must be filed with the Labor Arbiter (Sec. 10, Migrant Workers Act)

These three (3) kinds of benefits [ medical expenses, sickness allowance, disability
benefits] have been held distinct and different from each other. Thus, the medical
expenses spent for the seafarers treatment and the sick wages cannot be deducted
from the disability benefits that the seafarer was eventually found entitled to receive
(Javier vs Philippine Transmarine Carriers,, , GR No. 204101, 02 July 2014).

Sickness and disability allowance

In the case of work-related injury or illness, the employer is liable for the full wage,
while the seafarer is still on board, and the cost of medical treatment in foreign ports.
When the seafarer need to be repatriated from the ship and receive further medical
treatment on land, the employer has to bear the cost of repatriation and treatment, and
the seafarer is entitled to an additional sickness allowance.

The amount of sickness allowance is the basic wage of the seafarer, covers the days
counting from the day he signed off from the ship until the time he is declared fit to work
or disability grading, provided in section 32 (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for
Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted),
assessed by the company-designated physician. This sickness allowance period
should not exceed 120 days [ 4 months] and not less than a month. During this
period the seafarer is deemed as having “temporary total disability”.

5
That the seafarer's sickness is later medically declared as not work-related does not
prejudice his right to receive sickness allowance, considering that he got ill while on
board the ship and was repatriated for medical treatment before the end of his 10-month
employment contract. (Transocean Ship Management (Phils.), Inc., Carlos S. Salinas, and
General Marine services Corporation vs. Inocencio Vedad/ Inocencio Vedad vs. Trancencio
Ship Management (Phils.), Inc., Carlos S. Salinas, and G.R. Nos. 194490-91/ G.R. Nos.
194518 & 19452420 March 2013)

Work-relation of Sickness & Injury

For disability to be compensable under Section 20(A) of the Amended Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers on-Board
Ocean-Going Ships issued on October 26, 2010 (2010 POEA-SEC),two (2) elements
must concur:

(a) the injury or illness must be work-related; and

(b) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the
seafarer's employment contract.

The 2010 POEA-SEC defines "work-related illness" as "any sickness as a result of

an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the Contract with the
conditions set therein satisfied." As for those diseases not listed as occupational
diseases, jurisprudence mandates that the same may be compensated if it is shown
that they are work-related and the conditions for compensability are
satisfied.Moreover, Section 20(A)(3)of the POEA-SEC commands that the employee
seeking disability benefits submit himself to post-employment medical examination
by a company-designated physician within three (3) working days from his
repatriation.

Conditions & Procedures

Thus, in situations where the seafarer seeks to claim the compensation and benefits
that Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC grants to him, the law requires the seafarer to
prove that:

(a) he suffered an illness;

(b) he suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract;
(c) he notified the employer of his illness within theree(3) days from arrival in the country
and submit himself to post-emplyment examination by a company-designated
pohysician.
(d) his illness is one of the enumerated occupational disease or that his illness or injury
is otherwise work-related; and
(e) he complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32(A) for an
occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be

6
compensable.( Malicdem vs. Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc., Inter-Ocean Company
Limited, G.R. No. 224753, 19 June 2019)

The illness leading to the eventual death of seafarer must be proven to have
been contracted during the term of the contract.. An injury or accident is said to
arise "in the course of employment" when it takes place within the period of
employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is
fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto. ( CF Sharp Crew
Management vs Heirs of Repiso, GR No. 190534, Feb 10, 2016)

It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or
acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits provided therefor. It is
enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the
development of the disease and in bringing about his death (ibid.)

The phrase "work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his employment
contract" under Part A (1) of the said provision should not be strictly and literally
construed to mean that the seafarer's work-related death should have precisely
occurred during the term of his employment. Rather, it is enough that the
seafarer's work-related injury or illness which eventually causes his death should
have occurred during the term of his employment (ibid.).

Even assuming that the ailment of the worker was contracted prior to his employment,
this still would not deprive him of compensation benefits. For what matters is that his
work had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease
and in bringing about his eventual death. Neither is it necessary, in order to recover
compensation, that the employee must have been in perfect health at the time he
contracted the disease. A worker brings with him possible infirmities in the course of his
employment, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the employees,
he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If the disease is the
proximate cause of the employee's death for which compensation is sought, the
previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant, and recovery may be
had for said death, independently of any pre-existing disease (ibid).

Settled is the rule that for an 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 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. (Jebsen Maritime Inc., vs. Timoteo Gavina, G.R. No.
199052, 26 June 2019). If the illness which caused the employee's death was either
contracted in the course of his employment or aggravated during the same
period, the clear causal connection between such illness and the employee's
eventual death already legally exists, making the death compensable regardless
of when such subsequent death occurred. It is not even required that the illness
contracted during the course of employment be the exact same illness that caused the

7
eventual death, for as long as it can be established that the work-related ailment he
contracted during the course of his employment be that which triggered the deterioration
of his body's resistance against the said illness, any related condition, or any other
affliction that he may have subsequently had (German Marine Agencies et al vs Caro, . GR
No. 200774, 13 February 2019).

Permanent and total disability benefits

The company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the

seafarer's fitness to work or degree of disability within the period of 120 days, which can
be extended to 240 days. A temporary total disability becomes permanent when so
declared by the company-designated physician within the period allowed, or
upon expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period in case of
absence of a declaration of fitness or permanent disability (Vergara v. Hammonia
Maritime Services, Inc. G.R. NO. 172933 , 06 October 2008).

A seafarer may pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits in any
of the following conditions:

(a) 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;

(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-
designated physician;

(c) 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 doctor
chosen under Section 20-8(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;

(d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently

disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer,
believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;

(e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently

disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;

(f) 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 selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work;

(g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled
but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) the company-
designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-

8
day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after
the lapse of the said periods. (Edgar L. Torillos vs. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, et al.,
G.R. No. 215904, 16 January 2019)

Notes

From the website of Del Rosario & Del Rosario are these important comments:

Author's Note:  Vessel interests have always argued that this  labor law principle of
120 days is not applicable to seafarers' claims as seafarers' claims are based on the
POEA Standard Employment C Philippine Social Security System (SSS) which has
different rules than that of the POEA Contract.  SSS pays a monthly pension of five years
provided the employee is not gainfully employed and is unable to recover from his
permanent disability.  Further, said employee must be examined by a doctor at least once
a year.  The POEA Standard Employment Contract provides for treatment until "maximum
cure" which may take more than 120 days and it is the company doctor that declares the
disability grading depending on a schedule of disability.  In fact, Section 20(3) of the POEA
contract states that the benefits under said contract are separate and distinct from the
Social Security System.

Necessity of 2nd doctor opinion

If the company-designated physician made an assessment declaring the seafarer fit to

work within the applicable period as prescribed under the POEA-SEC and in relevant
laws and jurisprudence, the seafarer may pursue his claim for disability benefits
only after securing a contrary medical opinion from his physician of choice. In other
words, a seafarer seeking compensation for his disability cannot file his claim
before seeking a second opinion.(Jan Frederick Pineda De Vera vs. United Philippine
Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 223246, 26 June 2019)

Necessity of 3rd doctor opinion

If the seafarer fails to signify his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third
physician, then the company can insist on the disability rati
ng issued by the company designated physician, even against a contrary opinion by the
seafarer's doctor. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the
employee, who must actively or expressly request for it. Failure to comply with
the requirement of referral to a third-party physician is tantamount to violation of
the terms under the 2010 POEA-SEC, and without a binding third-party opinion,
the findings of the company-designated physician shall prevail over the
assessment made by the seafarer's doctor. Thus, without the referral to a third
doctor, there is no valid challenge to the findings of the company-designated physician.
In the absence thereof, the medical pronouncement of the company-designated
physician must be upheld.(Jan Frederick Pineda De Vera vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 223246, 26 June 2019).

9
Pre existing condition; estoppel does not apply.
Deliberate concealment by a seafarer of a pre-existing medical condition in his
Pre Employment Medical Examination (PEME) constitutes fraudulent
misrepresentation which shall disqualify him from any disability compensation
and benefits. In one case , the seafarer did not indicate in the appropriate box in his
PEME form that he has hypertension, although he had been taking Norvasc as
maintenance medicine for two years. He only disclosed his pre-existing medical
condition after he was repatriated to the Philippines. Since PEME is mandatory before a
seafarer is able to board a ship, it goes to show that he concealed his hypertension no
less than four times as well. This circumstance negates any suggestion of good faith
that the seafarer makes in defense of his misdeed . The company was held not in
estoppel simply because the seafarer passed his PEME. A "fit to work" declaration in
the PEME is not a conclusive proof that a seafarer is free from any disease prior to
deployment (Gesmundo vs NEDA Maritime Agency G.R. No. 210955 14 August 2019).

Medical abandonment

The seafarer cannot claim disability benefits because he also committed medical
abandonment. In this case, after undergoing several tests, the seafarer was placed
under observation. The attending physician advised him to return for his medical
clearance but the seafarer did not do so. He argues that he could still feel the symptoms
of his ailment despite having been cleared by the company's cardiologist from coronary
arterial disease on October 15, 2009. Hence, he was prompted to consult another
doctor. However, while indeed a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other
doctors under Section 20(8)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, this is on the presumption that
the company-designated physician had already issued a certification on his fitness or
disability and he finds this disagreeable.

As case law holds, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite

assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or to determine his disability within a period
of 120 or 240 days from repatriation. The 120-day period applies if the duration of the
seafarer's treatment does not exceed 120 days. On the other hand, the 240-day period
applies in case the seafarer requires further medical treatment after the lapse of the
initial 120-day period. In case the company-designated doctor failed to issue a
declaration within the given periods, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently
disabled. When the seafarer chose not to show up at the appointed date of
consultation, effectively preventing the company physician from making a fitness
or disability assessment, he breached his duty under the 2000 POEA-SEC.
Without any final assessment from the company-designated physician, the
seafarer's petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits must fail.
(Gesmundo vs NEDA Maritime Agency G.R. No. 210955 14 August 2019).

Premature complaint

Both the company physician and the seafarers own physician recommended that the
seafarer undergo at least a bone scan to determine his current condition while

10
undergoing treatment, thus indicating that his condition needed further attention. In this
regard, the company is correct in arguing that the seafarer abandoned treatment,
as under the law and the POEA contract of the parties, the company physician is
given up to 240 days to treat him. The fact that the seafarer's own doctor required the
conduct of further tests on him is an admission that his diagnosis of permanent total
disability is incomplete and inconclusive, and thus unreliable. It can only corroborate the
company-designated physician's finding that further tests and treatment are required. It
has been]previously held that a seafarer is guilty of medical abandonment for his
failure to complete his treatment before the lapse of the 240-day period, which
prevents the company physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his
disability (Maunlad Trans, Inc.;, v.Rrodelas, jr., gr. No. 225705, 01 April 2019).

No Evidence of Work Related Injury

In one case, the Supreme Court affirmed the disapproval m]of the claim for
compensation because no evidence was submitted to show that the seafarer met
an accident on board the vessel that caused his injury. There was no accident
report or any medical report issued indicating that the seafarer figured in an accident
while on board. Moreover, the Medical Report issued by the attending physician in
Newcastle, England did not mention that the seafarer's injury was caused by an
accident on board but instead noted that the primary cause of the injury was: "Pain
occurred at his right leg up to his pelvis during standing for a long period of time."
Hence, Torillos' claim that he met an accident on board was based on pure allegations.
It is basic that Torillos must prove his own assertions and his failure to discharge the
burden of proving that he was covered by the CBA militates against his entitlement to
any of its benefits. (Torillos vs. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 215904,
January 16, 2019.

Suicide and insanity

The POEA-SEC requires the employer to prove not only that the death is directly
attributable to the seafarer himself but also that the seafarer willfully caused his death
Evidence of insanity or mental sickness may be presented by the heirs of the
deceased to negate the requirement of willfulness as a matter of counter-defense.
Since the willfulness may be inferred from the physical act itself of the
seafarer(his jump into the open sea), the insanity or mental illness required to be
proven must be one that deprived him of the full control of his senses; in other
words, there must be sufficient proof to negate voluntariness.

Homesickness and/or family problems may result to depression, but the same
does not necessarily equate to mental disorder.  The issue of insanity is a question
of fact; for insanity is a condition of the mind not susceptible of the usual means of
proof. As no man would know what goes on in the mind of another, the state or

11
condition of a person’s mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.
Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given
by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the person claimed to be insane, or who
has rational basis to conclude that a person was insane based on the witness’ own
perception of the person, or who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. No
such evidence was presented to support the claim of the seafarer's heirs..(Agile
Maritime Resources vs Siador , GR No. 191034, 01 October 2014).

In order for insanity to prosper as a counter-defense, the claimant must substantially

prove that the seafarer suffered from complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act or complete absence of the power to discern the
consequences of his action. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties does not
foreclose willfulness. In fact, the ship log shows the deceased seafarer was still able to
correct maps and type the declarations of the crew hours before he jumped overboard.
The captain observed that the deceased seafarer did not appear to have any problems
while performing these simple tasks, while the seafarer -on-guard reported that the
deceased seafarer did not show any signs of unrest immediately before the
incident. These circumstances, coupled with the legal presumption of sanity tend to
believe the heir’s claim that the deceased seafarer no longer exercised any control over
his own senses and mental faculties (Seapower Shipping vs Heirs of Sabanal, GR No.
198544, 19 June 2017).

CBA Benefits

The special clauses on CBA must prevail over the standard terms and benefits
formulated by the POEA-SEC. The sea fearer will always have the minimum rights as
per the POEA-SEC, but to the extent a CBA gives better benefits, these terms will
override the POEA-SEC terms. This is so because the contract of labor is so
impressed with public interest that the more beneficial conditions must be endeavored
in favor of the laborer. (MECO Manning and Crew Services vs Cuyos, GR No. 222939, 03
July 2019

Voluntary company offer of benefits

The Supreme Court has affirmed the award granted by the NLRC and the CA for
payment or reimbursement of the medical expenses of the seafarer relative to the
required treatment for his cancer is proper., based on the company's voluntary offer.
that was admitted in its position paper filed at the outset before the Labor Arbiter.
Having obliged itself ] to shoulder the medical treatment , the employer must be held
answerable to said obligation with interests of 6% per annum shall be imposed on said
medical expenses and sickness allowance from finality of the decision until paid.
(Transocean Ship Management (Phils.), Inc., Carlos S. Salinas, and General Marine services
Corporation vs. Inocencio Vedad/ Inocencio Vedad vs. Trancencio Ship Management
(Phils.), Inc., Carlos S. Salinas, and G.R. Nos. 194490-91/ G.R. Nos. 194518 & 19452420
March 2013) PFFALLARJRDEC2020

12
13