E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
12/19/21, 1:33 PM
Respondent claims that sometime in July 2003, he showed manifestations of a heart
disease when he suddenly felt chest pains, shortness of breath and fatigability.[7] He,
however, never substantiated such claim. He never showed any written note, request
or record about any medical check-up, consultation or treatment. Similarly, he failed
to substantiate his allegation that after his arrival in Manila on July 18, 2003, he
reported to petitioners’ office on July 31, 2003 to seek medical consultation for the
discomfort he was experiencing but petitioners ignored him.[8]
He also alleged that on August 4, 2003, more or less sixteen (16) days after arriving in
Manila, he underwent a physical and laboratory examination at the Maritime Clinic for
International Service, Inc. conducted by petitioners where he was declared to be unfit
for sea duty. Again, there is no record of this except his self-serving claim. What is on
record is that on September 24, 2003, respondent surfaced demanding payment of
disability benefits.
Respondent failed to comply
with the mandatory 3-day rule
More importantly, respondent failed to comply with the mandatory 3-day medical
examination deadline provided in Section 20(B), paragraph (3) of the 2000 Amended
Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on
Board Ocean-Going Vessels. As earlier stated, it was only on September 24, 2003, or
more than two (2) months after his arrival in Manila, that he sought a medical opinion
from Dr. Vicaldo who declared him unfit to work as a seaman due to “hypertensive
cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus II.”[9] Section 20(B),
paragraph (3) of the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the
Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, reads:
Section 20(B), paragraph (3) thereof states:
X x x.
3. Upon sign off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is
entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is
declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been
assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this
period exceed one-hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment 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.
[Emphases and underscoring supplied]
While the rule is not absolute, there is no credible explanation from respondent why he
failed to comply with the mandatory rule considering his claim that in July, 2003, he
was suffering from chest pain, shortness of breath and fatigue. An award of disability
benefit to a seaman in this case, despite non-compliance with strict mandatory
requirements of the law, cannot be sustained. The rationale behind the rule can easily
be divined. Within three days from repatriation, it would be fairly easier for a physician
to determine if the illness was work-related or not. After that period, there would be
difficulty in ascertaining the real cause of the illness.
To ignore the rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would
open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits. It
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/38828
Page 5 of 8