3/25/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
403 Phil. 572
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 142049, January 30, 2001 ]
GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, INC. AND LUBECA MARINE
MANAGEMENT HK LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION AND FROILAN S. DE LARA,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
On 17 October 1994, private respondent was hired by petitioners to work as a radio
officer on board its vessel, the M/V T.A. VOYAGER. Sometime in June, 1995, while the
vessel was docked at the port of New Zealand, private respondent was taken ill. His
worsening health condition was brought by his crewmates to the attention of the
master of the vessel. However, instead of disembarking private respondent so that he
may receive immediate medical attention at a hospital in New Zealand, the master of
the vessel proceeded to Manila, a voyage of ten days, during which time the health of
private respondent rapidly deteriorated. Upon arrival in Manila, private respondent was
not immediately disembarked but was made to wait for several hours until a vacant slot
in the Manila pier was available for the vessel to dock. Private respondent was confined
in the Manila Doctors Hospital, wherein he was treated by a team of medical specialists
from 24 June 1995 to 26 July 1995.
After private respondent was discharged from the hospital, he demanded from
petitioners the payment of his disability benefits and the unpaid balance of his sickness
wages, pursuant to the Standard Employment Contract of the parties. Having been
assured by petitioners that all his benefits would be paid in time, private respondent
waited for almost a year, to no avail. Eventually, petitioners told private respondent
that, aside from the sickness wages that he had already received, no other
compensation or benefit was forthcoming.[1] Private respondent filed a complaint with
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for payment of disability benefits and
the balance of his sickness wages. On 31 July 1997, the labor arbiter rendered a
decision,[2] the pertinent parts of which are quoted hereunder In the case at bar, there is no issue on the propriety or illegality of
complainant's discharge or release from employment as Radio Operator.
What complainant is pursuing is limited to compensation benefits due a
seaman pursuant to POEA Standard Employment Contract, Part II, Section
C, paragraph 4(c) and paragraph 5, which reads:
"SECTION C. COMPENSATION BENEFIT
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50003
1/16