Del Rosario & Del
Rosario
Shipping and the Law
Claim for loss
of earnings denied; findings of company doctor upheld
By: Ruben Del Rosario,
Managing Partner, Del Rosario & Del Rosario, October 5, 2005
Seafarer worked for vessel
owner for some three years from 1997 to 2000.
In November 2000, he had heart problems and he eventually had a coronary
bypass after being disembarked in
Seafarer consulted his own
doctor who issued a certificate of total and permanent disability. Seafarer eventually filed a claim for loss of
earnings of US$62,929 and Grade 1 total disability of US$60,000.
Both the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC Commission ruled in favor of seafarer.
The Court of Appeals
decided on two issues: whether seafarer
is entitled to loss of earnings of US$62,269 and whether seafarer is entitled
to total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.
The Court of Appeals ruled:
The Court decided the issue
on loss of earnings in its first decision of 27 February 2004. The Court of Appeals ruled that seafarer is
not entitled to “loss of earnings” as awarding of the same is repugnant to the
rule on double recovery. Besides,
nowhere in the POEA Standard Contract of Employment did it provide for
such a grant. The Court, however, awarded
US$60,000 as total disability.
On motion for
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reversed its earlier ruling with its
decision of August 16, 2005. The Court
ruled that the findings of “fit to work” by the company physician must
prevail. Sec. 20 (B) No. 2 of
the (old) POEA Standard Employment Contract is clear that it is the
“company-designated” physician who must declare the fitness or unfitness of the
seafarer. In this instance, the company
physician who treated seafarer from the time of repatriation to the time of
fitness, declared him “fit to work”.
Seafarer’s physician only saw him twice and issued his disability
certificate more than 11 months after the June 27, 2001 certificate of fitness
to work by the company designated physician.
The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is that if the
terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control and
the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its
plain meaning (German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142049, January
30, 2001, 350 SCRA 629).
Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. et.al. vs. NLRC,
et.al., CA-GR SP No. 75052, February 27, 2004 (1st Decision); August
16, 2005 (2nd Decision).
_______________________________