Shipping and the Law
Labor Code
provision of total disability after 120 days of illness held not applicable to
seafarers
By: Ruben Del Rosario,
Managing Director,
Summary
Seafarer was declared
"fit to work" more than 120 days from the discovery of his
illness. He claimed that he should be paid total disabilty benefits as
under Article 192 of the Labor Code of the
Facts
Seafarer worked on the MV
Shima as Chief Cook. On September 15, 1999, he was signed off due to
"brain tumor". In
Seafarer filed a claim for
total and permanent disability benefits alleging that his illness lasted for
more than 120 days and under Article 192 of the Labor Code he should be
considered totally and permanently disabled. Article 192 states:
Total and Permanent
Disability
(c) The following
disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:
(1) Temporary
disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, exept as
otherwise provided for in the Rules.
The Labor Arbiter ruled
that seafarer was entitled to US$80,000 as disabilty benefits as seafarer
was not declared "fit to work" until January 14, 1999 or more than
120 days from his illness and seafarer was unable to perform his customary job
as Chief Cook on board an ocean-going vessel.
On appeal to the NLRC
Commission, the decision was reversed. Seafarer appealed to the Court of
Appeals which upheld the decision of the NLRC.
The Court of
Appeals ruled that reliance by the seafarer on Article 192 of the Labor
Code is misplaced. Seafarer's claim is founded on the POEA Standard
Employment Contract that applies to Filipino seafarers, and not the law as
embodied in Article 192 of the Labor Code. The said contract governs the
relationship between the parties in this case. The NLRC cannot ignore the
clear terms of the POEA contract which required the submission by the seafarer
to a post-employment medical examination before a company-designated
physican to determine seafarer's disability. The company-designated
physician declared the seafarer "fit to work" on January 14,
2000. Therefore, the seafarer being "fit to work" is not
entitled to disabilty benefits.
Piloton vs. NLRC,
et. al., CA-GR SP. No. 71391, De