Quantcast
Channel: Del Rosario & Del Rosario Lawfirm - Philippine Shipping Updates
Viewing all 98 articles
Browse latest View live

Social Security System increases contribution rates effective April 2019; implements condonation program

$
0
0

In this Issue:

 
Holiday Notice
 
Social Security System increases contribution rates effective April 2019;  implements condonation program
Supreme Court denies claim of crew who was injured while working out in the ships’ gym

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 2 April 2019 (Issue 2019/04)

 
Holiday Notice: Our offices will be closed on Tuesday, 9 April 2019 (The Day of Valor). We will also be closed from Thursday, 18 April 2019 to Sunday 21 April 2019 for the Easter Holidays.  Emails will be monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile +63 917 8308384
 
 
Social Security increases contribution rates effective April 2019; implement condonation program
 
 
The Social Security Act of 2018 which became effective on 5 March 2019 increased the monthly contribution rate to 12% from the previous 11%.  This increase will be followed by three more 1-percentage point increases in 2021, 2023 and 2025 until the contribution rate will be 15%  The maximum monthly salary credit from which the contribution is based was likewise increased to PHP20,000 for the years 2019 - 2020, PHP25,000 for the years 2021 - 2022, PHP30,000 for the years 2023 - 2024 and PHP35,000 starting 2025.
 
The adjustments, which include sea-based Overseas Filipino Workers, will be implemented starting April 2019 per the Social Security System Circular No. 2019-007 issued on 15 March 2019.
 
Moreover, the same law has provided a condonation program which delinquent employers can apply for until 5 September 2019. Under SSS Circular No. 2019-004 dated 15 March 2019, any employer who is delinquent or has not remitted all contributions may avail of the condonation program. This includes employers who are not yet registered with the SSS and those against whom final judgments have been rendered by the courts for non-payment of contributions. The condonation applies only to penalties on unremitted contributions up to January 2019.
 
To view the SSS Circular, click here Social Security System Circular No. 2019-007
 
 
Supreme Court denies claim of crew who was injured while working out in the ship’s gym
 
 
The seafarer was engaged as a Casino Dealer on-board the ship.  During his break, the crew decided to workout in the ship’s gym where he sustained lumbar injury.  The crew alleged that this injury was aggravated by an earlier injury he sustained when he was assisting an elderly passenger in a wheelchair and lost his balance.  While the crew was undergoing treatment with the company-designated physician, he sought the opinion of his chosen doctor who declared him unfit for sea service in any capacity as a seafarer.  On the strength of such opinion, he filed a claim for disability benefits against the company.    
 
The company denied the claim on the basis that the injury sustained by the crew was not related to his work as a casino dealer.
 
The Labor Arbiter granted the claim of the crew and held that the company will not be released from liability even if the injury was due to a gym incident.  On the other hand, the NLRC dismissed the claim as the injury is not work-related which ruling the Court of Appeals sustained.
 
The claim was still denied upon reaching the Supreme Court.
 
The Court held that for disability to be compensable, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.  Work-related injury pertains to an injury resulting in disability or death arising out of, and in the course of, employment. Jurisprudence explains that the words "arising out of” refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words "in the course of refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. As a matter of general proposition, an injury or accident is said to arise "in the course of employment" when it takes place within the period of the 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.
 
Work-relatedness of an injury or illness means that the seafarer's injury or illness has a possible connection to one's work, and thus, allows the seafarer to claim disability benefits therefor. The rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Thus, the burden is placed upon the crew to present substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion that there is a causal connection between the nature of his employment and his injury.
 
In this case, the crew failed to prove a reasonable connection between his work as a Casino Dealer and his alleged lumbar disc injury.  Apart from his bare allegation that he sustained a previous injury while assisting an elderly passenger on a wheelchair, no other competent and independent evidence was presented to substantiate and to corroborate said claim.
 
On the other hand, the company was able to expose the falsity of the crew’s story when they submitted in evidence the Crew Injury Statement, prepared entirely in the handwriting of the crew which contained his admission to the effect that the subject injury resulted from his gym workout.  The occurrence of the aforesaid incident was confirmed in a document denominated as Personal Injury Illness Statement.
 
Said documents would prove that the crew’s strenuous physical activity consisting of frequent bending and improper lifting of heavy objects during his routine workout at the ship’s gym produced extreme torsional stress on his back which caused his subject injury. As correctly contended by the company, there is nothing in the Job Description Manual which state that part of the crew’s duty as a Casino Dealer is to go to the crew gym and use its facility for his physical workout.  As such, the crew failed to prove work-causation of the subject injury.
 
J. G. vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Celebrity Cruises et. al, G.R. No. 222523, October 3, 2018, Third Division, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, ponente (Attys. Catherine Mangahas and Jonathan Vinarao of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment
 
“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018
 
“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018
 
“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018 
 

 
 
 
 

 

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 

 

 


Supreme Court upholds company-designated physician’s Certificate of Fitness to Work

$
0
0

 

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 23 April 2019 (Issue 2019/05)

 

Holiday Notice:Our offices will be closed on Wednesday, 1 May 2019 (Lab

or Day) and Monday, 13 May 2019 (Election Day). Emails will be monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile +63 917 8308384.
 
 
Email Interruption Notice: The email system of Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc. will undergo a system upgrade from 27-29 April 2019. There may be delays and interruptions in our receiving of emails. Please ensure to copy in mail@delrosariolaw.com and/or an involved supervisor in charge at their email address firstname.lastname@delrosariolaw.com.
 
Supreme Court upholds company-designated physician’s Certificate of Fitness to Work
 
The seafarer was engaged as a “technical rating” and during his employment, he slipped and fell on his back.  He was taken to a shore side medical facility where he was found to be suffering from “Stable Anterior Wedge Fracture T10”.  Because of this, the seafarer was repatriated for further medical treatment with the company-designated doctor.
 

Further tests confirmed that seafarer was suffering from “Thoracic Spine Spondylosis with associated T12 Compression Fracture”.  The company-designated doctor then issued an interim assessment of grade “8” and advised the seafarer to continue his rehabilitation and medication. Eventually, the seafarer was declared fit to work and he even executed a Certificate of Fitness to Work.
 
When the seafarer was not re-employed by the company after almost four months, he consulted another doctor about the pain in his back.  He was assessed with a grade “11” disability and was recommended not to lift heavy objects.  The seafarer also consulted another doctor who assessed him permanently unfit for further sea duty in any capacity.  Thereafter, the seafarer filed a complaint for disability benefits.
 
The Labor Arbiter awarded full disability benefits to the seafarer and held that the Certificate of Fitness to Work is invalid as it includes a waiver of future claims which is prohibited.  It was also concluded that the seafarer signed the Certification of Fitness to Work with the expectation that he would be redeployed given his long and continued service with the respondents under his previous contracts.  When the seafarer was not re-engaged, this supports the disposition that the seafarer was not fit for re-deployment notwithstanding the fit to work assessment of the company-designated physician.
 
On appeal to the NLRC, the claim was dismissed.  The NLRC gave more credence to the findings of the company-designated physician and noted that the seafarer did not immediately contest this and only sought the opinion of other doctors when he was not re-deployed.  Moreover, the NLRC held that the company was under no obligation to re-hire the seafarer after his contract expired.
 
However, the Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter sustaining the award of disability benefits.
 
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the claim was again dismissed.
 
Certificate of Fitness to Work upheld
 
The Court held that there is no doubt that the company-designated physician’s certification was issued within the extended 240 days period allowed for the seafarer’s medical treatment.  This is not contested by the seafarer as in fact, he did not challenge the Certificate of Fitness to Work when it was issued and four months after that.  That when the seafarer signed the certificate on the same day he was declared fit is proof of his concurrence with the company-designated physician’s findings.
 
In the same manner, within the four months before the seafarer filed his compliant, he did not return to the company-designated physician or see a doctor of his own choice to complain of any lingering affliction.  It was only when he was not deployed that he consulted with his two doctors – both of his own choosing.
 
The Court further held that the findings of the company-designated physician was not a hastily issued missive but the product of months of consultations, examinations, treatments, and assessment.  Compared to the findings of the two doctors the seafarer chose, who only examined him once and based their assessment on his previous medical treatment, the company-designated physician’s certification is more credible and must be upheld.
 
Non-compliance with third doctor procedure fatal to seafarer’s cause
 
The Court recognized that the seafarer has the right to seek a second medical opinion from a physician of his own choice.  However, the process does not stop there.  In addition to obtaining a second medical opinion, the seafarer must activate the conflict resolution procedure stated in the POEA Contract.  It is the seafarer who bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor’s findings are correct, as well as the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been made by his own doctor.  Upon the discharge of said burdens, then it is now the burden of the company to initiate the process for the referral to a third doctor agreed upon by the parties.  The referral to a third doctor upon mutual agreement of the parties is mandatory and unjustified failure to comply with the procedure will militate against claim for benefits.
 
In this case, the seafarer never questioned the company-designated physician’s assessment, nor informed the company of the contrary diagnosis by his doctors. There is likewise no evidence that the seafarer gave the company any chance to seek a third doctor’s opinion as in fact, the complaint was filed just two days after he obtained the opinion of his personal doctor.
 
In conclusion, the Court held that the seafarer’s failure to follow the mandated procedure of the POEA Contract is fatal to his cause and holds the Certificate of Fitness to Work issued by the company-designated physician is conclusive and binding on the parties.
 
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Fleet Maritime Service International Ltd., et. al . and MV AZURA vs. M. V., G.R. No. 221250, October 10, 2018, Second Division, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, ponente (Attys. Herbert Tria and Pedrito Faytaren, Jr.  of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
Firm News
 
 DelRosarioLaw Senior Partner Charles Dela Cruz and DelRosarioPandiphil In-house Medical Doctor Edgardo Del Rosario were invited by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) to speak at the 23rd Labor Dispute Management Course, an annual training workshop for its Directors and Conciliators-Mediators held on 3 April 2019 in Candelaria, Zambales. Atty. Dela Cruz lectured on “Maritime Jurisprudence” while Dr. Del Rosario (with Atty. Dela Cruz as panel speaker) discussed “Compensable Illnesses/Diseases and Disability”.
 
DelRosarioLaw Familiarization Program
 
 We would like to thank all those who participated in the DelRosarioLaw Program over the past 6 months.  We have had visitors from Skuld P&I (Anne Wikdal, Yvonne Thaulow, April Goh and Mark Rudd), West of England (Kay Mathews, Monica Whiting and Aliki Gotsi) and the Swedish Club (Karoline Rydelid and Julia Ju).    
 
The DelRosarioLaw Familiarization Program aims to help participants in better understanding Filipino crew claims and the legal system in the Philippines.  It includes visits to PEME and post-employment clinics, the labor courts, manning agents and the unions.            
 
Should you wish to participate, please send us an email and we will be more than happy to welcome and assist you in the program.
 

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018

 

 

 

Supreme Court rules that claim is premature when filed before lapse of 240 days treatment

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 27 May 2019 (Issue 2019/06)

 

 

Holiday Notice:Our offices will be closed on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 (Philippine Independence Day). Emails will be monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile +63 917 8308384.
 
 
Supreme Court rules that claim is premature when filed before lapse of 240 days treatment
 
 
Seafarer was engaged as Chief Cook on-board the vessel.  His employment was covered by the International Bargaining Forum All Japan Seamen's Union/Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines-International Mariners Management Association of Japan (IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). While in the performance of his duties, the seafarer experienced pain in his right leg radiating to his lower extremities. He reported the matter to the Master of the vessel who, in turn, brought him to a shore hospital. There, he was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary stone in his right urinary tract and was prescribed pain reliever drugs. Due to persistent back and leg pains, he was again taken to a shore hospital where the doctor recommended his repatriation for further management and treatment.
 
Upon arrival in Manila, the seafarer was referred to the company-designated physician for medical evaluation, examination and treatment. He was diagnosed with “Lumbar Spondylosis; L4-L5 Diffuse Bulge with Resultant Bilateral Neural Foraminal Stenosis; L5-Sl Diffuse Disc Bulge with Radial Tear; and L5-Sl Disc Desiccation”.  The seafarer was advised to undergo physical therapy to address his medical condition.  Thereafter, the company-designated physician issued a medical opinion that seafarer’s lumbar disorder is degenerative in nature with an interim disability assessment of grade “8”.  The seafarer then continued his therapy with the company-designated physician. However, despite continued therapy sessions, the seafarer filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter against the company for payment of permanent and total disability benefits
 
Thereafter, the seafarer consulted another doctor who declared him unfit for sea duty.  It is on this basis that he argues for payment of disability benefits under the CBA considering that his lumbar condition was due to the fact that he fell to the floor after carrying a heavy sack of rice.  On the other hand, the company denied the claim as the same was pre-existing.  At the most, the entitlement of the seafarer should only be US$16,795 based on the grade “8” assessment of the company-designated physician.
 
The Labor Arbiter awarded maximum disability benefits of US$118,800 to the seafarer based on the CBA which the NLRC upheld on appeal.  With the Court of Appeals, the award of disability benefits was modified to US$60,000 based on the maximum benefits under the POEA Contract.  It was held that the CBA was not applicable as the fact of accident was not proven.  Both parties petitioned to the Supreme Court.
 
With the Supreme Court, the award was further modified to US$16,795 based on the grade “8” disability issued by the company-designated physician.
 
The CBA is not applicable
 
The Court did not apply the CBA as it was not convinced there was evidence to show that seafarer met an accident on board the vessel that caused his injury. There was no accident report or any medical report issued indicating that seafarer figured in an accident while on board. Moreover, the Medical Report issued by the shore physician did not mention that his 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." As such, seafarer’s claim that he met an accident on board was based on pure allegations. It is basic that the seafarer 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.
 
Seafarer’s reliance on the Court's ruling in NFD Int'l Manning Agents, lnc./Barber Ship Mgmt. Ltd. v. lllescas is misplaced. In the Illescas case, the Court held that Illescas' disability, while not caused by an accident, was still compensable under the CBA as the CBA contained a permanent medical unfitness clause which stated that a seafarer who becomes disabled as a result of any injury shall be entitled to compensation. This is not the case here. As aptly observed by the CA, there was no similar provision in the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ, which is the CBA effective at the time of seafarer's employment with the company. The grant of disability benefits under the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA is confined only to "… accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer is reduced as a result thereof but excluding permanent disability due to willful acts, …".  As the seafarer failed to prove by substantial evidence that his disability was caused by an accident, there is no basis in awarding him disability benefits under the CBA. As the CBA is inapplicable, seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits is therefore governed by the POEA Contract and relevant labor laws which are deemed written in the contract of employment with the company.
 
The seafarer suffered from a work-related and compensable illness
 
The company argued that the seafarer’s illness is not compensable as it is not work-related.  This belief was based on the report of the company-designated physician that seafarer’s condition is degenerative and pre-existing. However, this argument was struck down by the Court as there is no categorical and definite declaration that seafarer’s medical condition is not work-related.
 
Further, the Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals that seafarer’s work as chief cook aggravated his condition.  The Court noted that the seafarer’s duties involved heavy manual labor such as carrying the heavy provisions of the ship, preparation and serving of all meals for the entire crew of the vessel, cleaning of dining, kitchen and work areas and of utensils. As such, while the seafarer’s lumbar spondylosis may be degenerative, there was sufficient basis to rule that his condition was aggravated by the nature of his work.
 
The claim filed by the seafarer was premature
 
The Court again stated the rule that 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.
 
In this case, the seafarer was given medical attention by the company-designated physician and opined that seafarer’s lumbar spondylosis will require further treatment. While still continuously receiving medical treatment from the company-designated physicians, seafarer filed a claim for disability benefits just 141 days from repatriation.   Evidently, it was premature for the seafarer at this time to invoke his claim for total and permanent disability inasmuch as the 240-day period had not yet lapsed. At the time he filed his complaint, he was still under temporary total disability. Instead of continuing his treatment which is still within the 240-day period allowed for the company-designated physician to evaluate his condition, he filed a case for total and permanent disability benefits despite the absence of a definite finding from the company-designated physician. He was armed only with the interim assessment of the company-designated physician which did not give him the cause of action for his claim. Moreover, it was only after the filing of such complaint that he sought the opinion of his own physician. As such, the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action.
 
From the foregoing, the seafarer had no cause of action for total and permanent disability claim. At most, he is only qualified to claim partial permanent disability benefits equivalent to Grade 8 disability rating under the POEA Contact, as reflected in the company-designated physician’s last assessment report.
 
E. T. vs. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, F.J. Lines, Inc., Panama et al.; Eastgate Maritime Corporation, F.J. Lines, Inc., Panama et al. vs. E. T., G.R. Nos. 215904 and 216165, January 10, 2019, Third Division, Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo, ponente
 
 
Firm News
 
 
Del Rosario & Del Rosario Law named as one of the best Philippine law firms in 2018 by Asia Business Law Journal
 
Prestigious law publication Asia Business Law Journal has named Del Rosario & Del Rosario as one of the top law firms In the Philippines specifically for the fields of Insurance and Reinsurance as well as Shipping and Maritime. Asia Business Law Journal writes: ”Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.”
 
Previously, Asia Law has ranked Del Rosario & Del Rosario as outstanding in the field of shipping and is a mainstay figure in the Legal 500.
 
Many thanks to all our clients, colleagues and friends for your continued trust and support in the firm as we continue to strive in delivering service which exceeds client’s expectations.
 
 
Del Rosario & Del Rosario Law visits Singapore
 

DelRosarioLaw Senior Associates Richard Sanchez and Maricris Ferrer attended the 2-day Skuld School course held at The Westin Singapore from 7-8 May 2019.  The course aims to introduce attendees to the rudiments of P&I insurance and discusses issues for a good working knowledge of the subject.
 
Richard and Maricris also took the opportunity to visit and touch base with other Singapore based Clubs to discuss different legal issues in the Philippines. 
 
Our heartfelt thanks to Skuld and all our friends from the Singapore offices of Gard, North of England, Steamship, West of England, UK P&I, Britannia P&I, Standard Club, Japan P&I and Shipowners P&I for your gracious hospitality and the invaluable discussions we had.

 

 

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 

 

Supreme Court rules seafarer abandoned treatment when complaint was filed prematurely

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 20 June 2019 (Issue 2019/07)

 

Supreme Court rules seafarer abandoned treatment when complaint was filed prematurely
 
The crew was hired by the company as Galley Steward on-board the ship.  After several months, the crew started experiencing seasickness and extreme low back pains. Despite medications administered by the ship's clinic, the pain persisted and extended down to the left thigh.
 
Subsequently, the crew was repatriated and was referred by the company to their designated physician for treatment.  With the company-designated physician, the crew was diagnosed with “lumbar spondylosis with disc extrusion, L3-L-4.”  The crew underwent physical therapy sessions and was advised to undergo surgery, which he refused.   On the 102nd day of treatment, the crew was assessed with a grade “8” disability due to 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk but was advised to undergo further therapy after three weeks.
 
On the 110th day of treatment, the crew filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter for total and permanent disability, reimbursement of medical and transportation expenses, damages, attorney's fees and legal interest against the company.
 
The company insisted that the crew is only entitled to US$16,795 which is the equivalent of the grade “8” disability assessment as found by the company physician.
 
The Labor Arbiter awarded full disability benefits of US$60,000 to the crew on the justification that the assessment of the company-designated physician was premature and made only to comply with the 120 days rule.  The Labor Arbiter also held that the disability of the crew is total and permanent as he is now prevented from being re-employed.  This decision was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.
 
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of benefits and held that the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a definite assessment of the crew’s fitness or disability within the 120/240-day periods provided under the law; that the company-designated physician's last report on the crew’s condition which "suggested" a disability grading of "Grade 8” is not a final or definite assessment of his fitness or disability because the crew was still required to return after three weeks for further examination; that regardless of the fact that the crew was required to return for further examination, the statutory 120/240-day periods would have elapsed without the crew being issued either a final and definitive disability assessment or a fit-to-work certification; that the crew's condition would not have improved even with the prescribed surgery, which he refused to undergo, because as admitted by the company-designated physician, it did not guarantee improvement of the crew’s condition; that to this day, the crew is still unable to resume his regular sea duties, his inability to find work continues, and he was not re-employed by the company; and that with the lapse of the statutory 1201240-day periods without the crew having gone back to work, he is deemed totally and permanently disabled.
 
Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the claim was dismissed.
 
The Court noted that upon the crew's repatriation, he underwent treatment under the auspices of the company-designated physician. He was advised to undergo surgery but the crew refused the procedure. Instead, he underwent physical therapy sessions. On the 102nd day of treatment, the company designated physician assessed the crew’s condition as a Grade “8” disability and advised him to return for rehabilitation after three weeks. However, on the 110th day of treatment, the crew filed the instant labor case for total and permanent disability benefits against the company. He did not return to the company-designated physician to continue with the latter's prescribed treatment.
 
By failing to continue with the treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician and instead filing the labor case before the expiration of the 120-day period, the crew violated the law and his contract with the company; he was guilty of abandoning his treatment. He filed the labor case before the 120/240¬day periods allowed under the Labor Code could elapse, and before the company-designated physician could render a definite assessment of his medical condition. For this reason, the filing of the labor case was premature.
 
The Court reiterated that that there is a procedure for conflict resolution covering disputes of the nature involved in the present case and that failure to observe said procedure is fatal.
 
Here, the crew did not comply with the terms of the POEA Contract. The failure of the company-designated doctor to issue an assessment was not of his doing but resulted from the crew’s refusal to cooperate and undergo further treatment. Such failure to abide with the procedure under the POEA Contract results in his non-entitlement to disability benefits.
 
 ln the absence of an opinion from a physician of his own choice, or a third one as the case may be, the crew must abide by the findings of the company-designated physician, which in this case remains unrefuted precisely since the crew plainly abandoned his treatment. The Grade 8 assessment of the company-designated physician therefore stands, and for this, the crew is entitled only to the equivalent monetary benefit of US$16,795.00 pursuant to the schedule of disability benefits under the POEA Contract.
 
Maunlad Trans, Inc., United Philippine Lines, Inc., Seachest Associates, Carnival Corporation and R. M. vs. R. R., G.R. No. 225705, April 1, 2019, First Division, Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo, ponente Attys. Ralph Villamor and Catherine Mangahas of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
 POEA Memorandum Circular: Deployment and crew/change ban in Tripoli, Libya
 
The POEA Governing Board issued Governing Board Resolution No. 3, Series of 2019 on 10 April2019, imposing a deployment ban on the processing and deployment of all Overseas Filipino Workers, including crew change and shore leave of Filipino seafarers in Tripoli and the following areas within the 100-kilometer radius, as follows:
 

To the East

  1. Tajoura
  2. Ghot Romman
  3. Qaraboli
  4. Qasr Khiyar

 

To the West

  1. Aziziya
  2. Warshifana
  3. Zawia
  4. Surman
  5. Sabratha

To the South

  1. Esbea
  2. Tarhuna
  3. Bani Waled
  4. Gharyan

 


The POEA Governing Board has reaffirmed the ban in Governing Board Resolution No. 4, Series of 2019 due to the worsening security situation brought about by the heightened violent clashes between the armed forces of the Libyan National Army and the Government of National Accord in Libya.
 
Promotions
 
DelRosarioLaw is proud to announce the promotions of Aldrich Del Rosario and Ralph Villamor.
 
Aldrich has now been appointed as Managing Associate with effect from 1 May 2019.  Aldrich is a Behavioral Sciences and Legal Management graduate of the De La Salle University. He earned his Bachelor of Laws degree in 2007 from the San Beda College of Law, Manila.  He completed his Master of Laws in Admiralty, graduating with distinction at Tulane University, New Orleans in 2011.   Aldrich has now been with the firm since 2008.
 
Ralph has now been appointed as Senior Associate with effect from 1 May 2019.  Ralph is a Political Science with specialization in International Relations graduate of Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila and a 2013 Bachelor of Laws graduate of University of Sto. Tomas, Manila.  He has been with the firm since 2014.
 
Congratulations and all the best to Aldrich and Ralph.
 
Firm News
 
DelRosarioLaw Senior Associate Julius Yano gave a lecture on ECDIS, Navigational Incidents and Loss Prevention during the crew seminar organized by Synergy Ocean Maritime, Inc. last 8 June 2019.  The lecture discussed, among others, the regulations on ECDIS operation in relation to the importance of ECDIS training and familiarization. A case study was likewise presented and paramount importance on the proper use of an up-to-date system by competent crew was stressed.  The concept of Bridge Team Management was likewise discussed to ensure safe shipping.

 

 

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 

 

Supreme Court denies claim based on a medical condition which was not duly proven to be cause of repatriation

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 18 July 2019 (Issue 2019/08)

 

Supreme Court denies claim based on a medical condition which was not duly proven to be cause of repatriation

The seaman was hired as Chief Cook on-board the vessel.  The seaman alleged that aside from his normal duties, he also helped in the loading and unloading of tons of cargoes of skipjack, tuna fish and big squid from numerous fishing boats and then unloading them at different ports of destinations.
 
During employment, the seaman noticed swelling and felt pain in his testicles after lifting, carrying and loading heavy sacks of big squid into the ship and performing chamber cleaning works. Seaman informed his Chief Officer about this and he was given antibiotics for temporary relief.  One month later, the seaman alleged that he accidentally slipped and lost his balance. Although he felt a crack at his lower back, he did not make much of it given that the pain was tolerable at that time. He continued with his task of loading the cargoes together with the other crew members.
 
After some time, the seaman alleged that the swelling and the pain in his testicles, and his back pains became alarming so he reported the same to the Captain and requested for a referral to a port doctor.  When the ship reached the port, seaman was surprised when the Captain, instead of referring him to a port doctor, told him that he will be repatriated. Thus, seaman claimed that he just asked the Captain for a medical referral upon his arrival in the Philippines.
 
Upon repatriation, seaman immediately went to the local manning agents’ office and personally delivered the Captain’s medical referral letter.  The seaman was then referred to the company-designated physician for examination and treatment.  After laboratory examinations, the seaman was diagnosed with varicocoele, bilateral. Thus, the attending specialist recommended the seaman to undergo a procedure called varicocoelectomy, bilateral.  The seaman eventually underwent the said procedure.  Follow-up examinations showed good progress and the seaman was eventually declared fit to work. 
 
Doubtful of his fit to work assessment, the seaman wrote the company that despite his operation, he still continues to feel pain on his surgical wound and experience numbness on the site of operation. He also feels pain on his spine. He, thus, asked that he be reevaluated and further tests be performed on him to determine his present state.  As the seaman did not get any response on his requests from the company, he decided to undergo MRI of his lumbo-sacral spines on his own which showed degenerative disc disease, L3-L4 and L4-L5 and broad based disc bulge with an annular tear at L4-L5.  The seaman also consulted his own doctors for a second opinion who opined that the health problem of the seaman may have been brought about by strenuous physical activities and that the condition of his spine poses a serious health problem which requires immediate spine surgical intervention. He also obtained a medical report stating that he is already permanently unfit to work.   The seaman continued to write the company asking for medical assistance for his back pain but did not receive any reply.
 
The seaman initiated arbitration proceedings for payment of disability benefits against the company citing the medical reports from his personal doctors.  The company denied this as the seaman was already declared fit to work by the company-designated physician and that the back pains being complained of was not the cause of his repatriation and were never mentioned to the company-designated physician. 
 
The voluntary arbitrators awarded full disability benefits to the seaman resolving that his medical conditions were work-related.  The voluntary arbitrators believed the seaman’s explanation that he was not able to notice that the Captain’s medical referral did not mention his back pains because of his shock when he was asked to go home instead of being referred to a port doctor.  The seaman’s explanation that he complained of his back pains but was not minded by the company-designated doctor because that was not the cause of his repatriation was also sustained by the voluntary arbitrators.
 
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the voluntary arbitrators.
 
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the claim for disability benefits was dismissed.
 
The back condition of the seaman was not duly recorded
 
The Court held that there is no denying that the seaman submitted himself to post-employment medical examination within the required period. However, what is peculiar in this case is that his examination was confined only to the pain and swelling in his testicles as had been mentioned in the doctor's referral, as well as for abdominal pain that he informed the doctor he had been experiencing on and off.  Seaman claimed that he brought to the attention of the company-designated physician his back pains but the doctor refused to examine him for such condition as it was not the ailment referred to him. 
 
The Court scrutinized the records of the case which reveals that the findings of the voluntary arbitrators are not supported by the evidence on record.  The Court noted that the seaman sent a letter to the company where he himself admitted that he requested a medical referral letter from his Captain because of his testicle pain only and not because of back pains.
 
The seaman’s letter shows that there is no truth that the ship captain failed to include his back pains in the doctor's referral and that because he was in a state of shock and disbelief upon learning that he will be immediately repatriated that he failed to notice such omission. The truth of the matter was that his back pains was not included in the referral precisely because his written request only asked for a referral for his testicular pain. If seaman had truly been experiencing continuing back pains while he was still on board the vessel, then it stands to reason that seaman's written request for medical referral would not only be for his testicular pain but would naturally include his back pains, especially so when he claimed that the same had become unbearable.
 
Moreover, seaman's contention that the company-designated physician refused to examine and treat him for his back pains because it was not included in the referral is not worthy of belief. Aside from the pain and swelling in his testicles, medical reports show that seaman's abdominal pain was likewise taken into account when the company-designated physician examined the condition of the seaman following his repatriation. This would show that contrary to the contention of the seaman, the company-designated physician would not have left undiagnosed and untreated an illness/injury that was brought to his attention, with or without a referral. Otherwise, the post-employment medical examination of the seaman would have only been confined to his testicular pain, the only ailment referred to the company-designated physician, and would not include his abdominal pain. Such was not the case here.
 
The three day rule applies to the claim for back pain
 
The Court held that seaman's failure to disclose his lumbar problem is fatal to his cause. Given that the seaman failed to bring to the attention of the company-designated physician his back pains thereby precluding the latter from assessing whether the same is work-related or not, the seaman is deemed not to have undergone the required post-employment medical examination contemplated under the POEA-SEC relative to his back pains for purposes of claiming compensation therefor.
 
The Court has consistently held that that the three-day mandatory reporting requirement must be strictly observed since within three days from repatriation, it would be fairly manageable for the company-designated physician to identify whether the illness or injury was contracted during the term of the seafarer's employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. Moreover, the post-employment medical examination within three days from arrival is required to ascertain the seafarer's physical condition, since to ignore the rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to seafarers claiming disability benefits that are not work-related or which arise after the employment. It would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness considering the passage of time. In such a case, the employer would have no protection against unrelated claims. Therefore, it is the company-designated physician who must proclaim that the seafarer suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either illness or injury, during the term of the latter's employment.
 
In this case, the company-designated physician had no opportunity to assess the back pains of the seaman since he made no mention of such back pains to the company-designated physician during his post-employment medical examination. To hold the company liable for disability benefits when they were robbed of the opportunity to determine the work relation of the injury now being complained of by the seaman would be the height of injustice.
 
Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc., Yokohama Marine and Merchant Corp and F.J. vs. A. B. P., G.R. No. 223295, June 4, 2019, Second Division, Associate Justice Jose Reyes, Jr., ponente (Attys. Lovereal Ocampo and Denise Cabanos of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
Firm News

DelRosarioLaw Senior Partners Charles Dela Cruz and Herbert Tria together with Senior Associate Julius Yano conducted a Workshop at Odfjell Philippines, Inc. on 1 July 2019. They covered a wide range of topics dealing with “Updates on the POEA Standard Contract and the 2016 POEA Rules governing Seafarers; Loss Prevention approaches in Crew Claims Handling; and General Average, Cargo and Pollution liability issues”.

Our thanks to Odfjell for the warm reception and interactive sessions.
 

 

 

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

 

 

 

 

Facebook

Twitter

Website

 
 
 
 

 

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 

 

Supreme Court rules that claim is premature if seafarer fails to give notice of intent to be assessed by a third doctor

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 8 August 2019 (Issue 2019/09)

 

Holiday Notice: Our offices will be closed on Monday, 12 August 2019 (Eid El-Adha), Wednesday, 21 August 2019 (Ninoy Aquino Day) and Monday, 26 August 2019 (National Heroes Day). Emails will be monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile +63 917 8308384.
 
Supreme Court rules that claim is premature if seafarer fails to give notice of intent to be assessed by a third doctor
 
The seafarer was employed as Able Seaman on-board the ship.  During the seafarer’s employment, he suddenly felt pain in his lower back and abdomen while in the performance of his duty. He also experienced difficulty and pain when urinating. Seafarer was brought to a shore clinic where he was treated.  However, as the symptoms persisted, the seafarer was eventually repatriated for further medical management with the company-designated physicians.
 
The company-designated physicians diagnosed the seafarer with "Prostatitis rule out Urolithiasis."  After a series of treatment and examinations, the seafarer was declared fit.  The seafarer appeared to have then undergone a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) where he was advised to undergo further examination for his condition. Thereafter, the seafarer sought consultation with his chosen doctor who diagnosed him to be suffering with nephrolithiasis, diabetic nephropathy, osteoarthritis, lumbosacral spine radiculopathy, and benign positional vertigo. He was also assessed to be physically unfit to return to work as a seafarer.
 
Subsequently, the seafarer filed a complaint with the NLRC for payment of permanent disability compensation.  The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals all upheld the claim for compensation relying on the findings of the seafarer’s personal physician.
 
Upon petition with the Supreme Court, the claim was denied for being premature.
 
The Supreme Court held that under the POEA Contract, when the seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work should be determined by the company-designated physician. However, if the physician appointed by the seafarer makes a finding contrary to that of the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third physician might be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer, and the third physician's decision would be final and binding on both parties. The Court emphasized that the non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third physician would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.
 
In this case, while the seafarer was not precluded from seeking a second medical opinion of his condition, the POEA Contract laid down the procedure to be followed when there is a disagreement between the assessments of the respective physicians of the parties.  The records do not indicate that the parties jointly sought the opinion of a third physician for the determination and assessment of the seafarer's disability or the absence thereof. The failure of the seafarer to give notice to the company of his intent to submit himself to a third physician for evaluation negated the need for the determination by a third physician. For this reason, the filing of the seafarer's claim for disability was premature.
 
The need for the evaluation of the seafarer's condition by the third physician arose after his physician declared him unfit for seafaring duties. He could not initiate his claim for disability solely on that basis. He should have instead set in motion the process of submitting himself to the assessment by the third physician by first serving the notice of his intent to do so on the company. There was no other way to validate his claim but this. Without the notice of intent to refer his case to the third physician, the company could not themselves initiate the referral. Moreover, such third physician, because he would resolve the conflict between the assessments, must be jointly chosen by the parties thereafter. Unless the seafarer served the notice of his intent, he could not then validly insist on an assessment different from that made by the company-designated physician.
 
Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc.; and A.P. Moller A/S vs. E. A., G.R. No. 216795, April 1, 2019, First Division, Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin, ponente
 
Temporary suspension of crew change and shore leave of seafarers in Sudan
 
The POEA has issued Governing Board Resolution No. 7, Series of 2019 dated 18 July 2019 imposing a temporary suspension on the processing and deployment of newly hired workers, including crew change and shore leave of Filipino seafarers in Sudan.  The recommendation was made due to the unstable peace and order situation thereat and the current risky and uncertain state of land transport across the country. 
 
Firm News
 
The Maritime Law Association of the Philippines (MARLAW), led by its President, DelRosarioLaw Partner, Denise Luis B. Cabanos, spearheaded a very successful and well-attended forum on 19 July 2019 at the Philippine Diamond Hotel, with the theme “Raising Awareness on Developments in Maritime Law.” Distinguished resources speakers, including Past President of MARLAW and DelRosarioLaw Partner, Charles Jay Dela Cruz, shared their insightful views on pertinent and interesting issues in maritime law and practice.   This was attended by more than 200 participants, mainly from the manning industry. This was the biggest and most attended MARLAW forum in recent history.
 
DelRosarioLaw Senior Associate Julius A. Yano gave a series of lectures on the concept of archipelagic states under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The lecture was given before members of the Philippine Bar as part of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education program for Filipino lawyers.
 

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

 

 

Facebook

Twitter

Website

 

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 

 

 

Supreme Court denies claim based on hypertension and glaucoma due to failure to provide substantial evidence and breach of the three day rule

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 13 September 2019 (Issue 2019/10)


Supreme Court denies claim based on hypertension and glaucoma due to failure to provide substantial evidence and breach of the three day rule
 
 Seafarer was engaged by the company on-board the vessel As Chief Engineer. Prior to embarkation, seafarer underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) where it was noted that he had a medical history of high blood pressure and hypertension. Nevertheless, he was declared fit to work.
 
During employment, seafarer suffered from blurring vision and headache and was seen by a doctor in Japan and eventually repatriated.  Seafarer was referred to the company-designated physician where he was diagnosed with glaucoma. The company-designated doctor further clarified that seafarer’s glaucoma was not work-related.
 
Eventually, seafarer again was engaged by the company and underwent a PEME where he was declared fit but was given maintenance medicines for his hypertension.  During the term of his employment, the seafarer again suffered episodes of dizziness and blurring vision and was repatriated. 
 
Seafarer did not report to the company for treatment and after some months, again sought re-employment.  When employment was denied by the company, he filed a claim for disability benefits.
 
Seafarer alleged that his aliments were work-related as he was exposed to psychological stress for being away from his family, to consumption of fatty, cholesterol and sodium rich foods which were part of the provisions in the vessel, to heat in the engine room emitted by ship equipment and to frequent inhalation of diesel and hydrocarbons used as fuel for the vessel.
 
On the other hand, the company argues that the illnesses are not work-related as the company-designated doctor had again issued an opinion reiterating that glaucoma is not work-related.  The company likewise argued that the seafarer did not report to them within three days from repatriation.
 
The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals all denied the claim of the seafarer.  The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the claim.
 
Breach of the three-day rule
 
The Court found that the seafarer did not contest the fact that he did not report to the company-designated physician within three days from repatriation.  Instead, the seafarer argues that such failure will only forfeit his right to sick wages and not disability benefits.
 
The Court held that this argument is flawed.  Several decisions have already held that failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement under the POEA Contract results in the forfeiture of the right to claim compensation and disability benefits of a seafarer.
 
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 would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness considering the passage of time. In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims.
 
Likewise, reporting to the company within three days from repatriation is required so that the company- designated physician can promptly arrive at a medical diagnosis, considering that he has either 120 or 240 days, depending on the circumstances, within which to complete the assessment of the seafarer.
 
As such, it is clear that the reporting requirement is indispensable, not only in claiming sickness allowance but likewise in claiming compensation and disability benefits under the POEA Contract.
 
Seafarer failed to present substantial evidence that his glaucoma and hypertension are compensable.
 
The POEA Contract creates a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed as an occupational disease are work-related. This disputable presumption is made in the law to signify that the non-inclusion in the list of compensable diseases/illnesses does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits. At the same time, however, this disputable presumption does not signify an automatic grant of compensation and/or benefits claim.
 
Despite the presumption, the Court has held that the seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease, as awards of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions.
 
On his hypertension, seafarer failed to substantially prove that the same was contracted due to, or aggravated by, the conditions of his work on board the vessel. The bare allegations that the sodium-rich food, physical and psychological stress and other emergencies on board the ship caused the exacerbation of his hypertension, is insufficient.  Even the opinion of seafarer’s private doctor, did not even explain the cause of the hypertension or attempt to connect the same to seafarer’s work conditions.  Moreover, there is no showing that he suffered hypertension while on board the vessel.
 
As for his glaucoma, seafarer claims that his duties and responsibilities as Chief Engineer, his exposure to the sea breeze and other elements of nature while the vessel is in open seas, the stress from his strenuous job and his emotional strain from homesickness aggravated his glaucoma. The Court rejected these contentions as thee were no competent medical history, records or physician's report to objectively substantiate the claim that there is a reasonable connection between seafarer’s work and his glaucoma.
 
Moreover, the Court gave weight to the medical opinion issued by the company-designated physician for seafarer’s first repatriation, that his glaucoma was not work related. While the company-designated physician’s opinion pertain to the seafarer’s glaucoma during his first repatriation, the same was given reasonable weight and credence in light of the settled jurisprudence that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer's illness for purposes of claiming disability benefits.
 
J. M. vs. Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc., Inter-Ocean Company Limited (Foremryl Ocean Shipping Company) et. al., G.R. No. 224753, July 29, 2019, Second Division, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, ponente (Attys. Joseph Rebano and Jonathan Vinarao of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
Firm News
 
DelRosarioLaw Partner Florencio Aquino and Del Rosario Pandiphil Claims Executive Ruth Manalo recently gave a seminar last 23 August 2019 to the key officers of the GCM Group of Companies which is comprised of Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation, Alpha Ship Management Corporation, Alphera Marine Services Inc, and Astra Marine International, Inc..  Florencio discussed various legal issues on Filipino crew claims while Ruth discussed basic procedures in claims handling.
 
Our big thanks to the GCM Group of Companies for the invitation and the fruitful discussions and we hope to see you again in your future conferences.   

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018


Facebook

Twitter

Website

 
 
 

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 


 

Supreme Court rules that claim is premature without a second medical opinion; conflict resolution procedure was not followed

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 1 October 2019 (Issue 2019/11)


Contact Details Update: 
 
Due to a change to an 8-digit format in the Philippine Telephone System, effective 6 October 2019, our new telephone numbers are as follows:
 
Telephone No: +63 2 88101791 / +63 2 5317 7888
Facsimile No: + 63 2 5317 7890 
 
Our 24/7 Mobile shall remain the same as +63 917 830 8384
 
Supreme Court rules that claim is premature without a second medical opinion; conflict resolution procedure was not followed 
 
The crewmember was engaged to work as a Bar Attendant on board the ship.  While on-board the crewmember complained of pain on his lower back which after medical examination was determined to be “Moderate degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, with a 5 mm right paramedian disc protrusion causing mass effect on the descending S1 nerve root on the right."  He was then repatriated and was referred to the company-designated physician for examination and treatment.  The crewmember underwent a series of physical therapy sessions and eventually, he was cleared to go back to work.  He was then paid his illness allowance and reimbursement for expenses for which he signed a quitclaim.
 
Apparently not convinced with the fit to work declaration, the crewmember filed a complaint for disability benefits.  Thereafter, he sought the opinion of his personal doctor who gave him a certificate that he is unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity which he used to pursue his claim.
 
The Labor Arbiter awarded full disability benefits to the crewmember relying on the latter’s personal doctor’s opinion.  On the other hand, the NLRC dismissed the claim of the crewmember and gave more credence to the findings of the company-designated physician.  The NLRC also observed that the crewmember voluntarily executed a quitclaim in favor of the company right after the issuance of the final medical assessment. In executing the said document, the crewmember impliedly admitted the correctness of the assessment by the company-designated physicians. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the crewmember’s claim was also denied.
 
The claim is premature
 
The Court noted that after the crewmember was declared fit to work by the company-designated physicians, he immediately filed a complaint for disability benefits.  Thereafter, it took him several months to obtain a medical opinion to contradict the findings of the company-designated physician.  With such factual antecedents, the Court held that the crewmember had no cause of action when he filed his complaint. 
 
The Court explained that it is clear that if the company-designated physician made an assessment declaring the seafarer fit to work within the applicable period as prescribed under the POEA Contract 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.
 
There is failure to validly challenge the company-designated physician’s assessment
 
The Court held that the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law.  However, this does not mean that the company-designated physician's assessment is automatically final, binding or conclusive on the seafarer as he can still dispute the assessment. In assailing the assessment, the seafarer must comply with the procedure provided under the POEA Contract by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case the findings of the seafarer's physician of choice differ from that of the company-designated physician, the conflicting findings shall be submitted to a third party doctor, as mutually agreed upon by the parties. The referral of the conflicting findings to an independent third doctor is important and crucial to the claim of the seafarer. 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 rating 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 seafarer, 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 POEA Contract, 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.
 
Moreover, the findings of the company-designated physician is more credible as it was arrived at after several months of treatment and medical evaluation as compare to that of the assessment of the crewmember's physician who examined the seafarer only once.
 
Execution of quitclaim implies agreement to company-designated physician’s findings
 
The Court upheld the quitclaim executed by the crewmember as it found the consideration to be reasonable as he was not entitled to disability benefits.  Moreover, it was not proven that the signature of the crewmember was obtained through force or fraud.  As the quitclaim is valid, the crewmember impliedly admitted to the correctness of the assessment of the company-designated physicians and admitted that he could no longer claim for disability benefits.
 
J.D. vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc. an/or Holland America Line Westour, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 223246, June 26, 2019, Second Division, Associate Justice Jose Reyes, Jr., ponente (Attys. Florencio Aquino and Lovereal Ocampo handled for vessel interests)
 
Author’s Note:  Of interest in this case is that the company-designated physician initially issued a medical report stating that the crewmember was considered as “maximally medically improved”.  The crewmember questioned the report which states that he was “maximally medically improved” arguing that this was not a definitive assessment of his fitness. The Court agreed that “maximally medically improved” was indeed not a definite assessment as it could mean either that the patient has fully recovered or that the patient's condition could no longer be improved.  However, since the company-designated physician, in a subsequent report, also stated that the crewmember is fit to work, then the ambiguity is no longer present.

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 


 

Additional Requirement on the 120/240 days rule

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 8 November 2019 (Issue 2019/12)


 

Additional Requirement on the 120/240 days rule
 
Recent decisions of the Supreme Court now provide for an additional requirement to the120/240 rule - the need for the seafarer to be provided a copy of the final medical assessment of the company designated physician (CDP).   
 
To recall, the 120/240 days rule require the company-designated physician to issue a final medical assessment within 120 days.  If no final medical report is issued without proper justification, the seafarer will be considered permanently and totally disabled.  If there is sufficient justification (for example, treatment has to be continued) as to why the company designated physician is not yet able to issue a final assessment within 120 days, then the period shall be extended to 240 days.  If after the lapse of 240 days and no final medical assessment is issued by the company-designated physician, then the disability is considered automatically considered of permanent and total in nature. 
 
With the recent decisions, it is now also necessary that the seafarer be provided a copy of the company-designated physician’s final assessment either within the 120 days or 240 days period, whichever is applicable.  If the final medical assessment is not given to the seafarer within the 120/240 days period, he may be considered automatically as permanently and totally disabled.
 
In view of this development, the following best practices is suggested in the observance of the 120/240 days rule:
 
Within 120 Days

1.     At the initial point of handling a claim, the following must be determined:

o    The illness or injury that the seafarer is suffering from

o    Work relation of the medical condition

o    Scope and estimated length of treatment

o    Prognosis and chances of fitness to work or degree of disability

o    existence of concealment or a pre-existing condition, intentional breach of duties and other special circumstances which may affect compensability

2.     After the medical condition has been determined as work-related, there must be continuous coordination with the physician to determine if there are changes in the plan of treatment and prognosis.  

3.     Prior to the lapse of 120 days, the company-designated physician must determine if he is able to come up with a final assessment.  If a final medical assessment is made within 120 days, then copy of the medical report showing such final assessment should be provided to the seafarer also within 120 days.

4.     It is important that a final medical assessment should be issued by the company-designated physician and the copy thereof likewise be provided to the seafarer within 120 days.  Otherwise, the seafarer will be considered as permanently and totally disabled.  If a final medical assessment cannot be issued and it would appear that the treatment will exceed the 120 days period, the company-designated physician should provide sufficient justification as to why treatment needs to be extended. It is however important that treatment will not exceed 240 days.

5.     It is worth emphasizing that the above guidelines of determining the final degree of disability and providing a copy thereof to the seafarer will only apply if the medical condition has been determined to be work-related or compensable under a relevant CBA

Within 240 Days

1.     During the extended period, close coordination should be made with the company-designated physician to determine the prognosis and estimated issuance of a final medical assessment

2.     Prior to the lapse of the 240 days, the company-designated doctor should already be in a position to prepare a final medical assessment whether declaring the seafarer fit to work or with a degree of disability.  In any event, the final medical assessment must be issued prior to the end of 240 days.  In the same manner,the seafarer must be provided with a copy of the final medical assessment which has been clearly explained to him within the same period, otherwise, there is a risk that he will be considered permanently and totally disabled.

 
The above are meant to serve as general guidelines in the handling of claims in relation to the 120/240 days rule and individual claims may call for alternative actions depending on their circumstances. 
 
Firm News
 
In close cooperation with Birgitta Hed of The Swedish Club, our Catherine Mangahas and Veronica Del Rosario-Aguinaldo made a presentation on “Understanding Legal and Practical Issues on Filipino Crew Claims” to Swedish Club Members in Donso, Sweden on 16 October 2019.
 
On 23 October 2019, a similar seminar was organized by The Swedish Club to its Members in Hamburg, Germany conducted by our Charles Dela Cruz, Denise Cabanos and Aldrich Del Rosario.   
 
Charles, Denise and Aldrich also lectured on the same subject organized by the West of England for its Members in Piraeus, Greece on 17 October 2019.
 
We express our deep appreciation to The Swedish Club and West of England for the excellent arrangements and the opportunity to interact with their respective Members.

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018.

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018

Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .


 
 

Supreme Court disregards findings of seafarer’s doctor for abandoning treatment with the company-designated physician

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 29 November 2019 (Issue 2019/13)


 

Supreme Court disregards findings of seafarer’s doctor for abandoning treatment with the company-designated physician

Seafarer was engaged by the company as an Able Seaman.  During his employment, he experienced pain on his lower back and after consultation with a shore doctor was medically repatriated.  The seafarer was referred to the company-designated physician where he was diagnosed with lumbosacral muscle strain. Physical therapy was recommended and seafarer showed signs of good improvement.  Because of this progress, the company-designated physician assured the seafarer that he could be given a fit-to-work certification after six sessions of physical therapy. However, notwithstanding the assurance, seafarer no longer reported back to the company-designated physician resulting to his medical abandonment.  For failure of the seafarer to report back, the company-designated physician issued a medical certificate assessing the former’s disability at grade “11” based on his last medical examination.
 
The seafarer consulted his own doctor who declared him to be unfit to work at his previous occupation.  He then claimed payment of disability benefits which was denied prompting him to file a formal complaint with the Labor Arbiter.  The seafarer argued that since his disability lasted for more than 120 days, and that he was declared unfit by his doctor, he is now entitled to maximum disability benefits.  The company denied the claim as the seaman committed medical abandonment.
 
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC favored the arguments of the seafarer and awarded full disability benefits.  However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and limited the award to US$7,465 based on the grade “11” assessment of the company-designated doctor.  The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
 
The Supreme Court explained that the company-designated doctor has 120 days within which to issue a final medical assessment and upon sufficient justification this may be extended to 240 days. 
 
Here, the seafarer was under the care of the company-designated physician, who regularly monitored and issued reports on seafarer's condition. However, on the 162nd day of treatment, the seafarer discontinued his physical therapy when he did not return for his treatment and the company-designated doctor has not yet issued a definite declaration on his condition. Without waiting for such declaration and/or the lapse of the 240 day period, the seafarer prematurely filed the suit even if his cause of action had not yet accrued.
 
Moreover, the opinion of seafarer's personal doctor cannot be given credence as it did not give the seafarer the cause of action he lacked when he filed the complaint. The Court said that while a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors, such right may be availed of on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a definite declaration on the condition of the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it disagreeable. Given the lack of certification from the company-designated physician, seafarer cannot rely on the assessment made by his own doctor.
 
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stated that the seafarer is entitled to US$7,465 based on the grade 11 disability rating as determined by the company-designated physician as this was issued within the time allowed to do so.
 
R. G. vs. Sea Power Shipping Enterprise, Inc. Mississauga Enterprises, Inc. et.al, G.R. No. 226200, August 5, 2019, Third Division, Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, ponente (Attys. Pamela Coseip-Abarico and David Valencia of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)
 
Health Alert:  Re-emergence of Polio virus in the Philippines

After 19 years of being polio-free, Polio is re-emerging in the Philippines.  As of this writing, there are now seven confirmed polio cases nationwide.  In line with this unfortunate development, the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) has now issued a travel advisory for travelers entering and leaving the Philippines. For those leaving, they are encouraged to check the immunization requirements of their country of destination, and if required, to receive a dose of Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) and get their International Certificate of Vaccination (ICV) from the Bureau of Quarantine to serve as proof of their vaccination. 
    
At present, there is generally no requirement for Filipino seafarers to get the polio vaccination before deployment. However, we recommend the manning agents to check which countries of destination (or ports of joining/ disembarkation) require such proof of vaccination.
   
As currently advised by the Bureau of Quarantine, the list of countries requiring a certificate of polio vaccination are as follows:

1.        Afghanistan

2.        Belize​

3.        Brunei Darussalam

4.        Georgia

5.        India

6.        Indonesia

7.        Iran

8.        Iraq

9.        Jordan​

10.     Lebanon

11.     Maldives

12.     Morocco

13.     Oman

14.     Pakistan

15.     Qatar

16.     Saint Kitts and Nevis

17.     Saudi Arabia

18.     Seychelles

19.     Ukraine

 
Said list and varying requirements are updated regularly. Hence, we suggest constant verification with the specific country included in the list as well as other countries a traveler intends to visit.
    
The vaccination is administered by both private and government hospitals including the Bureau of Quarantine, the authority which issues the certificate (ICV). The vaccine is free of charge when received from a government hospital. On the other hand, the certification from the Bureau of Quarantine has a fee of PHP 300 (or roughly USD 6). In view of the number of travelers applying for the ICV, the certification may currently take about 4 weeks to be issued and this should be taken into consideration in any deployment.
 
Firm News
 
Our thanks to Cecilie Holm Nilsen from GARD P&I for participating in the DelRosarioLaw Familiarization Program last 18 – 25 November 2019.
 
The DelRosarioLaw Familiarization Program aims to help participants in better understanding Filipino crew claims and the legal system in the Philippines.  It includes visits to PEME and post-employment clinics, the labor courts, manning agents and the unions.            
 
Should you wish to participate, please send us an email and we will be more than happy to welcome and assist you in the program.
 
DelRosarioLaw Partner Florencio Aquino was a speaker at the crew conference of Seanergy Maritime Corp. / VShips Manila last 21 November 2019 which was held at Citadines Bay City Hotel.  He discussed issues arising from concealment in the pre-employment medical examination and the Seafarer’s Protection Act.
 
Our congratulations and thanks to Seanergy Maritime Corp. / VShips Manila for a successful conference.  See you all again soon.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018

Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .


 
 

Supreme Court rules CBA not applicable as accident not proven

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 18 December 2019 (Issue 2019/14)


 

Holiday Notice: In view of the Christmas holidays, our offices will be closed on 24-25 December 2019, 30-31 December 2019 and 1 January 2020. Emails will be monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile +63 917 8308384.
 
 
Christmas Message
 
Dear clients and friends,
 
We extend to you and your family the best of the Christmas season and a New Year 2020 that is filled with good health, happiness and prosperity.
 
As part of our CSR program for this year, we participated in Brigada Eskuwela activities of the Philippines Norwegian Business Council at Libis Elementary School in Quezon City, Philippines. We likewise gave assistance to the Sacred Heart Chapel at West Crame, a chapel that serves our soldiers; the Church of the Poor Apostolate of the St. James the Great Parish, an organization that helps the 100 poorest parishes and those that suffer calamities such as typhoons; and the Tuloy Foundation for street children, which provides a home and education to hundreds of abandoned and orphaned children. 
 
We look forward to our 43rd year and our continued improvement to give you the service you deserve.  We are now 100 strong, with 35 lawyers and 25 claims handlers and a support staff of 40.  All of us wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
 
Christmas in the Philippines is all about spending time with your family and friends.  It is unfortunate that there are countless Filipino seafarers on board ships that are unable to be with their loved ones.  Please say a fervent prayer for them and if you see them around, kindly greet them “Maligayang Pasko” from all of us here in the Philippines.
 
DelRosarioLaw / DelRosario Pandiphil
 
 
Supreme Court rules CBA not applicable as accident not proven
 
Seafarer was engaged as Bosun on board the ship.  His employment was covered by the IBF-JSU/PSU-IMMAJ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA for short) which requires a disability to arise from an accident for compensation.  He alleged that during employment, he slipped while cleaning the cargo hold under bad weather condition. The Master advised the seafarer that since his end of contract is nearing, to just seek medical attention when he arrives in the Philippines.  Upon repatriation, the seafarer was referred to the company-designated physician who diagnosed him with bilateral nephrolithiasis and lumbar spondylosis. After treatment, the company-designated physician assessed the seafarer with a grade “8” disability for his back condition but declared the bilateral nephrolithiasis to be not work-related.
 
The seafarer consulted his own doctor and then filed a complaint for disability benefits with the Labor Arbiter based on the CBA. 
 
The company disputed the claim as seafarer’s bilateral nephrolithiasis is not work related as certified by the company-designated physician. Meanwhile, the lumbar spondylosis was classified as grade “8” disability only and that the CBA did not apply as the condition was not due to an accident. 
 
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC awarded full disability benefits to the seafarer and applied the CBA rates.  They held that the seafarer’s disability was caused by an accident which makes the CBA applicable and his condition has prevented him from resuming to seafaring duties. 
 
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the labor courts and modified the award of disability benefits to US$16,795 based on the grade “8” disability assessment of the company-designated physician.  The appellate court likewise denied applicability of the CBA and applied the rates found in the POEA Contract.  
 
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the award of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
 
Third doctor procedure not followed
 
The Court noted the conflicting findings of the company-designated physician (grade “8” disability) and that of seafarer’s physician of choice (unfit to go back to work) and that the dispute should have been referred to a mutually appointed doctor in accordance with the provisions of the CBA and the POEA Contract.  The Court further held that it is the duty of the seafarer to signify his intent to refer the conflict between the findings of the company-designated physician and that of his own doctor to a third doctor.  After notice from the seafarer, the company must then commence the process of choosing the third doctor.  There was no such request made by the seafarer and as the procedure was not availed, the Court declared that the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail.
 
The CBA is not applicable as the condition did not arise from an accident
 
The Court noted that to prove the “accident”, the seafarer presented his own statement as well as that of an un-notarized statement from an AB of the vessel attesting to the slipping and fall.  However, upon review of all the evidence of the parties, it was shown that the seafarer was experiencing back pains since two years ago. The report issued on-board as well as the medical reports of the company-designated physician and seafarer’s doctor failed to show that seafarer suffered from an accident.  The medical reports merely stated that the seafarer had back pains from two years ago which was aggravated when he was carrying heavy objects.  The Court held that carrying heavy objects cannot be considered as an accident and as such, the compensation is outside the coverage of the CBA and the POEA Contract will apply.
 
E. J. vs. Orient Line Philippines, Inc., Orient Navigation Corporation et. al., G.R. No. 225190, July 9, 2019, Second Division, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, ponente (Joseph Rebano and Saben Loyola of DelRosarioLaw handled for vessel interests)

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018

Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com.


 
 

Supreme Court promulgate Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 23 January 2020 (Issue 2020/01)


Supreme Court promulgate Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases
 
To provide parties in cases in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction a fast, reliable and efficient means of recourse to Philippine courts, and to enhance the administration of justice in admiralty and maritime cases through the development of judicial expertise, the Supreme Court has promulgated the new Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases.  The Rules took effect on 01 January 2020.
 
According to the Court, the Rules will cover civil actions filed under shipping and other related laws, rules, and regulations, while allowing international shipping norms and standards to apply. Innovations from foreign jurisdictions are introduced, such as the arrest of a vessel, cargo or freight to secure a maritime claim, and the appointment of appraisers to determine a vessel’s or cargo’s value when sold to satisfy a final judgment. The Rules also establish a special proceeding for limitation actions to facilitate the application of the “limited liability rule” under the Code of Commerce.  In certain instances, ship owners may limit their liability for claims arising from marine casualties by constituting a limitation fund and abandoning their vessel.  Likewise incorporated in the Rules are concepts intended to reduce trial time and hasten case resolution, such as prohibited pleadings and motions, continuous trial, and defined timelines for every stage of trial.
 
The adoption of the Rules is a first in the Philippines and existing courts will be designated as admiralty courts which shall have jurisdiction over all actions in admiralty.
 
POEA issues deployment ban to Iraq and Kuwait
 
The POEA has issued separate Governing Board Resolutions in imposing a deployment ban on Filipino overseas workers to Iraq and Kuwait.
 
In Governing Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2020 dated 10 January 2020, the POEA imposed a deployment ban to Iraq, which includes crew changes and shore leaves of Filipino seafarers, due to the escalating tensions between Iran and the Unites States.
 
In Governing Board Resolution No. 04, Series of 2020 dated 15 January 2020, the POEA imposed a deployment ban to Kuwait.  The ban includes crew changes and shore leaves of Filipino seafarers, due to a lack of protection and welfare of Filipino overseas workers in Kuwait.
 
New Rate of the Pag-IBIG Fund Effective January 2021
 
Pag-IBIG Fund will be raising their rates for the years 2021 and 2023.   On 06 November 2019, the Pag-IBIG Fund Board of Trustees unanimously approved the increase in the maximum monthly compensation to be used in computing the required two percent (2%) employee contributions (savings) and two percent (2%) employer share of its members. 
 
The approved maximum monthly compensation shall be increased from the current five thousand pesos (PHP5,000) to seven thousand five hundred pesos (PHP7,500), effective 01 January 2021 and to ten thousand pesos (PHP10,000.00), effective 01 January 2023.
 
As a result, the required monthly contributions (savings) of Pag-IBIG Fund members and the corresponding employer counterpart share shall be increased from the current one hundred pesos (PHP100.00) to one hundred fifty pesos (PHP150.00), effective 01 January 2021, and to two hundred pesos (P200.00), effective 01 January 2023. 
 
Firm News
 
Del Rosario & Del Rosario named as 2019 Best Law Firm in the Philippines in Shipping and Maritime by Asia Business Law Journal. 
 
Asia Business Law Journal’s Philippines Law Firm Awards are based on votes, references and qualitative information received from in-house counsel and other legal professionals in the Philippines and around the world. 
 
We share this recognition with our clients and friends whose continued support over the years only strengthens our resolve to provide better and quality service. Cheers!

_____________ 

DelRosarioLaw Partner Joseph Rebano was invited to be a lecturer by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Special Committee for the Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases in the Training Seminar on the Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases which was held last 11-12 December 2019. 
 
The training seminar is designed to apprise selected judges, court personnel and other stakeholders on the Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases as approved by the Supreme Court.   Participants included designated selected Judges, Branch Clerks of Court and Sheriffs of designated Pilot Admiralty Courts.  Joseph spoke on “Rules 6 to 7: Arrest of Vessel, Cargo or Freight”.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property.
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment.

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018.

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018.

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018.

Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

ALERT: 2019 NCoV ARD

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 6 February 2020 (Issue 2020/02)


Holiday Notice: Our offices will be closed on Tuesday, 25 February 2020 (People Power Revolution Anniversary). Emails will be monitored but for urgent matters, please call our 24/7 mobile +63 917 8308384.
 
ALERT:  2019 NCoV ARD
 
 Following the 30th January 2020 declaration by the World Health Organization that the 2019-nCoV ARD is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, the Philippine Government has issued on 31 January 2020 a temporary travel ban for those coming from China including Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions.
 
The temporary travel ban covers non-Filipinos who are directly coming from China, including Hong Kong and Macau. It likewise covers those who travelled to said areas within the past fourteen (14) days. Exempt are Filipinos and those holding a Philippine permanent resident visa, said individuals are to undergo quarantine for 14 days.
 
There is also a temporary travel ban on Filipinos to travel from the Philippines to China including Hong Kong and Macau.

On 4 February 2020, the Department of Health issued Department Circular No. 2020-0034 (“DOH Circular No. 2020-0034). This circular modified Bureau of Quarantine’s Memorandum Circular 2020-04 dated 3 February 2020 that originally imposed a ban on the entry to Philippine ports of foreign vessels coming within the past 14 days from China including Hong Kong and Macau.
 
Based on DOH Circular No. 2020-0034, the following are the guidelines:
 

A.      For Cruise Vessel

A.1.  All Cruise Ships with passengers, regardless of nationality, from China, Macau and Hong Kong or had passed through these territories in the past 14 days are not allowed to dock at any Philippine port.
 
A.2.   All Cruise Ships not calling on the ports of China, Macau and Hong Kong SAR within the last 14 days are allowed to dock in Philippine ports.  They must undergo complete screening measures, submission of duly accomplished Maritime Declaration of Health , and other pertinent documents related to 2019 NCoV ARD.
 
A.3.  All Cruise Ships allowed to dock must declare all travel itineraries/excursions in the Philippines.
 
A.4.  The master of the vessel must report immediately any occurrence of flu-like symptoms (e.g. fever, cough, colds, body weakness and difficulty of breathing).  In an event of flu like manifestation arising, the master must immediately report to the Quarantine Maritime Officer (QMO) for guidance on implementing infection prevention and control protocols to minimize the spread of infection on board.
 

B.       For Cargo Vessels

B.1.  All vessels coming from China, including Hong Kong and Macau, in the past 14 days must be boarded at the quarantine anchorage.
 
B.2.  Upon arrival at quarantine anchorage, the master of the vessel must hoist at its foremast the yellow flag and inform immediately the Quarantine Station at the assigned port through ship agents.  Strictly no embarkation/disembarkation policy.
 
B.3.  Quarantine boarding formalities shall ensue – the master of the vessel shall submit a duly accomplished Maritime Declaration of Health and the Bureau of Quarantine shall issue free patique.  Other boarding formalities shall ensue.
 
B.4.  Vessels cleared at the first port of entry and calling another local port, which within the past 14 days travelled to China, Hong Kong and Macau, must be boarded at the designated Quarantine anchorage by the QMO, submit duly accomplished Maritime Declaration of Health and other pertinent documents.      
 
B.5.  The master of the vessel must report immediately any occurrence of flu-like symptoms (e.g. fever, cough, colds, body weakness and difficulty of breathing).  In an event of flu like manifestation arising, the master must immediately report to the Quarantine Maritime Officer (QMO) for guidance on implementing infection prevention and control protocols to minimize the spread of infection on board.
 
B.6.  The QMO will conduct triaging of cases/s using current Case Definition.
 
B.7.  Ship agent of the vessel with person under investigation (PUI) situated in a non-competent port will arrange the immediate diversion of the vessel to the nearest competent port (Manila and Cebu) in the Philippine territory.
 
B.8.  PUI in a competent port will be conducted in a dedicated hospital and the vessel will be declared as affected vessel.  A confirmed laboratory result of case will commence a 14 day quarantine at the anchorage and hoist the Lima flag.  Day zero starts at the conduction of the PUI.
 
     On the 14th day,  the QMO will board the vessel, examine the documents, muster the crew and issue a free patique.  The master of the vessel may then lower down the yellow flag, and other formalities will commence.
 

C.       General Preventive Measures

C.1.  Continue hygienic practices and sanitary measures at all times.
 
C.2.  Waste disposal of vessels coming in from China, including Hong Kong and Macau, in the past 14 days, are not allowed in Philippine ports.
 
DOH Circular No. 2020-0034 seems to be in line with the statement released by the Philippine Ports Authority on 4 February 2020 declaring that Philippine ports remain open to vessels coming from China and its Special Administrative Regions under specific conditions.
 
Further issuances may change the guidelines to be observed for foreign vessels entering Philippine ports depending on public health conditions. Subsequent alerts will be made should revised guidelines be issued by competent authorities but it is also highly recommended that coordination with ship agents be made on a regular basis to see if there will be new developments that may affect the ship’s operations.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment.

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018.

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018.

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018.


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

POEA issues general guidelines on the management of COVID-19

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 11 March 2020 (Issue 2020/03)


POEA issues general guidelines on the management of COVID-19
 
The POEA has issued memorandum Circular No. 03, Series of 2020 prescribing General Guidelines on the Management of the Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) situation last 27 February 2020.
 
As the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (AITF-EID) has made the following recommendations which were adopted by the POEA.  The following are the salient provisions affecting seafarers:
 
1.         Travel Ban
 
The temporary ban on the departure of travelers bound for China has been imposed by the Philippine government for all visa types.
 
For joining and disembarking crew for international sea-going vessels, all flights should be scheduled without layovers in China and in any other areas that may be subsequently covered by travel bans.
 
Subsequent travel bans or the lifting thereof would depend on the advice of health authorities.
 
2.         Travel Precautions
 
Seafarers travelling to countries not covered by the travel ban are advised to practice the preventive measures provided by the Department of Health (frequent proper washing of hands, use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available, avoid animals (alive or dead), animal markets, and products that come from animals i.e. uncooked meat, follow advisories and public health plans of the country of transit or destination and awareness of nearest health facilities).
 
3.         Onsite Precautionary Measures for Seafarers
 
In addition to the travel precautions, manning agencies and seafarers working in international sea-going vessels are further advised to observe the following:
 
a.  No disembarkation, no crew change and no shore leave policies are in effect for all Filipino seafarers employed on ships calling on ports of China and in any other areas that may be subsequently added by the Philippine Government and its travel ban;
b.  Ensure personal protective equipment (PPEs) including facial protection is provided for all crew;
c.   Avoid close contact with anyone who has fever and cough;
d.  For galley workers: Strictly observe strict food hygiene and safety in the storage , preparation and serving of to avoid cross-contamination particularly in the handling of raw meat , milk or animal organs during food preparation.
 
4.         Onsite Employment Conditions
 
a. Seafarers who contracted illness due to COVID-2019 shall be compensable by the Principals/ employers.
b. All manning agencies must make arrangements to release the final wages of seafarers under quarantine at the soonest practicable time.
c. Request for extension of contract of seafarers onboard their international sea­ going vessels due to possible delay in disembarkation and repatriation of seafarers shall be allowed.
 
5.         Quarantine Procedures / Medical Repatriation/ Voluntary Repatriation Procedures
 
a.  Seafarers who will be repatriated from vessels with documented COVID-19 infection or the itinerary of which are known to be affected by COVID-19 shall be subjected to the quarantine protocols prescribed by the IAFT-EID, DOH or the Bureau of Quarantine;
b.  If a crew member onboard falls sick and has been travelling to COVID-19 affected areas 2 to 12 days before embarkation, the person must observe self­ quarantine;
c.   If a crew member is sick onboard a ship, he/ she· must fill out a maritime declaration of health and notify his/ her manning agency, relevant port authority and must immediately consult the nearest available healthcare provider;
d.  Seafarers who finished or are soon to complete their contract of employment from vessels coming from COVID-19 affected areas will be disembarked in the next nearest port / country that allows crew repatriation under their quarantine regulations; and
e.  In the event that the disembarked/ repatriated seafarers who may have come into contact with persons infected with COVID-19, have experienced symptoms of COVID-19, they must immediately inform the manning agent and the designated referral hospitals near their area.
 
6.         POEA OEC Procedures
 
For seabased workers, the OECs issued through in-house processing which are affected by the travel ban shall be recognized as valid for deployment upon submission of a report of the respective manning agencies containing the name of the seafarers and their corresponding OEC numbers to the POEA Seabased Accreditation and Contract Processing Center (Seabased Center). The Seabased Center shall coordinate with the POEA's Labor Assistance Center (LAC) and/or Regional and Overseas Coordinating Office (ROCO) to ensure that the validity of such OECs are recognized.
 
7.         Health and Safety Precautions in Manning Agencies in the Philippines
 
Manning agencies based in the Philippines are advised to implement DOLE Advisory No. 04, Series of 2020 providing for Guidelines on 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019 N-CoV) Prevention and Control at the Workplace.
 
8.         Lifting of the Travel Ban for Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR
 
Pursuant to the recommendations of the IATF-EID contained in Resolution No. 06 Series of 2020, OFWs and seafarers are required to affirm their knowledge on the health conditions in Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR through a Declaration as well as other requirements that may be subsequently recommended by the task force, World Health Organization or the DOH.
 
a.  Consistent with POEA Advisory No. 18, Series of 2020, seafarers are allowed to join as well as to be repatriated or to disembark from Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR upon execution of a Declaration signifying their knowledge and understanding the risks involved in the current health developments caused by the COVID-19.
 
Shore leaves are being discouraged in Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment.

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018.

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018.


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

Firm Announcement – Metro Manila under Community Quarantine

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 13 March 2020 (Issue 2020/04)


 

Firm Announcement – Metro Manila under Community Quarantine
 

To our valued colleagues and friends, due to the continuing rise of COVID-19 infections, the Philippine health authorities has declared a Code Red sublevel 2 status in the country.  The government has now declared the whole of Metro Manila under a state of community quarantine starting 15 March 2020 until 14 April 2020.  During this period, land, domestic air and domestic sea travel to and from Metro Manila will be suspended, schools will be closed, government work in the executive department will be suspended (but will have skeletal force; likely to be adopted by the judicial department) and flexible working arrangements are encouraged to be adopted in the private sector.  While the agencies of the government are expected to provide guidelines on the implementation of the community quarantine, the situation will be assessed on a day-to-day basis.
 
Prior to this announcement, and with the primordial interests of their employees’ safety and health in mind, Del Rosario & Del Rosario as well as Del Rosario Pandiphil have adopted flexible work arrangements. These arrangements may change depending on the fluidity of the circumstances. While Del Rosario & Del Rosario / Del Rosario Pandiphil commit to continue to provide the service it has been known for, there may be delays or limitations in the service provided because of such arrangements.  
 
We shall provide further updates should there be any change in the situation.  We thank you for your support and understanding during these abnormal times.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

Enhanced Community Quarantine enforced over Luzon, Philippines (as of 21 March 2020)

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 21 March 2020 (Issue 2020/05)


 

Enhanced Community Quarantine enforced over Luzon, Philippines (as of 21 March 2020)
 
 
On 16 March 2020, the Philippine government placed the entire island of Luzon, which includes Metro Manila, under enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) status due to the COVID-19 situation.  The ECQ status will be up to end of 12 April 2020 but is being monitored on a day-to-day basis.
 
Under this scheme, the following are being implemented:
 
1.     Strict home confinement in all households, 
2.     Except those involved in essential and critical sectors, there is work suspension in the public and private sectors, 
3.     Suspension of transportation lines, 
4.     Regulation of provision for food and essential health services, and
5.     Heightened presence of uniformed personnel to enforce isolation procedures. 
 
Nevertheless, the movement of cargoes to and from the Philippines shall remain unhampered although delays may be expected as strict quarantine measures are being implemented. Luzon ports shall continue to be open to cargo ships. Embarkation or disembarkation of crew is not permitted as a general rule except in the case of Filipino seafarers joining or disembarking the vessel, subject to the requirements imposed by the government. 
 
The international airports in Luzon remain open but travel is restricted.  Overseas Filipino workers (including seafarers) are still allowed international travel subject to presentation of documents.  They are also allowed to be repatriated through Luzon airports although a challenge they may face is leaving Metro Manila/Luzon island should their final destination be somewhere else.  Just recently, foreigners are temporarily not allowed to enter the Philippines until further notice subject to limited exceptions.
 
Considering that offices in Metro Manila/Luzon are closed, the challenge is in the actual deployment of Filipino seafarers.  Because of the ECQ, and in heeding the call of the government, some manning agents have temporarily suspended office operations and implemented work from home schemes. PEME clinics have likewise suspended operations.  Logistical difficulties may also be encountered because of closure of businesses.
 
It should also be noted that other parts of the Philippines not covered by the ECQ have implemented quarantine measures depending on their situation.
 
For seafarers that will be repatriated due to medical reasons, post-employment medical clinics have also implemented measures in compliance with the ECQ due to the COVID-19.  We have established direct contact with the doctors to ensure that the seafarers will be provided medical care/advice based on their current condition.   For those already undergoing treatment with the doctors, it is likely that that out-patient consultations will be delayed due to the ECQ being enforced.

This extraordinary time has resulted in a disruption in the maritime industry.  The Philippine government is dealing with the situation as it arises and regulations are sent out to address this.  We are closely monitoring the fluid situation and will provide updates should there be further changes.


 
References:
 
- PROCLAMATION NO. 922; 8 March 2020 
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2020/02feb/20200308-PROC-922-RRD-1.pdf
- MARINA ADVISORY NO. 2020-14; 13 March 2020
https://marina.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MARNA-Advisory-No.-2020-14.pdf
- DOTR TASK GROUP GUIDELINES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOTR) FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASE
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DOTr-Guidelines-re-Com-Quarantine_20200314164704.pdf
- MEMORANDUM FROM THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; 16 March 2020
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2020/03mar/20200316-MEMORANDUM-FROM-ES-RRD.pdf
- PROCLAMATION NO. 929; 16 March 2020
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2020/03mar/20200316-PROC-929-RRD.pdf
- PPA MC 10-2020; 17 March 2020
https://www.ppa.com.ph/sites/default/files/issuances_docs/PPA%20MC%2010-2020.pdf
- POEA MC 07-2020; 18 March 2020
https://www.ppa.com.ph/sites/default/files/issuances_docs/PPA%20MC%2010-2020.pdf

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

COVID19 and issues on the employment of the Filipino seafarer

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 28 March 2020 (Issue 2020/06)


 

COVID-19 and issues on the employment of the Filipino seafarer
 
As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, several countries have now implemented travel restrictions and locked up their borders in a bid to slow down further infections in their jurisdiction.  The Philippine Government has likewise implemented a Luzon wide enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) starting 16 March 2020 which will end on 12 April 2020 and is reviewed on a day-to-day basis.  The ECQ limits the movement of people within Luzon until the quarantine is lifted.  There are also other local governments outside of Luzon which has implemented an ECQ scheme and it is foreseen that others will follow depending on how the situation is in their locality.  This novel situation has now brought up several issues regarding the employment of Filipino seafarers which this update seeks to partially address for the guidance of everyone.    
 
 
Termination of Contract
 
Under Section 2 of the POEA Contract, a seafarer’s contract is deemed terminated upon reaching the point of hire which is usually in Manila. It is expected that seafarers will have difficulty travelling to their respective provinces because of quarantine/lockdown measures imposed by various local government units throughout the country as well as the domestic flight cancellations of local airlines.
 
Strictly speaking, the employer is not legally obligated to shoulder the expenses for the crewmembers’ stay in Manila while waiting for modes of transportation going to their home provinces. However, given the current crisis there is nothing that prohibits the employer to shoulder these expenses and the government has in fact encouraged private enterprises to lend assistance to those who are affected by the COVID-19 crisis.    
 
Some manning agencies have arranged flights of seafarers directly to their home provinces to avoid them being stranded in Manila and avoid them incurring costs while waiting to be transported to their home provinces. However, this may not be possible given international flight cancellations to the Philippines until 12 April 2020.  Also, some localities like Cebu has recently imposed a prohibition on arrivals of all persons, foreigners or Filipinos alike, beginning 27 March 2020  (Cebu Governor Executive Order No.  5-N series of 2020 dated 25 March 2020). Some localities may issue similar guidelines depending on the situation.
 
 
Maximum 60 Days Extension of Seafarers’ Contracts 
 
Last 20 March 2020, POEA issued Memorandum Circular 7A-2020 which allows the extension of seafarer contracts subject to below conditions:
 
“II. Extension of Seafarer Contract
 
The consummated contract of seafarers who are prevented by circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic to disembark or to be repatriated can be extended for a maximum of sixty (60) days, provided that: 
 
a. the seafarer is asymptomatic of COVID-19;
b. the extension is mutually agreed upon by the seafarer and the principal;
c. requirements for exemptions set by international seafaring authorities are complied with, if applicable; and
d. LMAs with seafarers whose employment contracts are extended are duly reported to this Administration.
 
Provided further, that the seafarer’s record book and passport are valid during the period of extension of the employment contract.”
 
 
Repatriation of Filipinos is allowed despite lockdown of Manila/Luzon Island 
 
Barring difficulties in flight arrangements, the repatriation of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) including Filipino seafarers to the Philippines is still allowed.  The POEA has issued Memorandum Circular No. 07-2020 which states:
 
“III.   OFW Arrivals, Repatriation and Departures
 
4. OFW Return and Repatriation. OFWs who are returning or being repatriated to the country shall subjected to the social distancing measures, quarantine procedures at national and local government unit (LGU) levels, as well as immigration procedures that are currently in place. 
 
Assistance and services for the said workers shall be provided by government agencies such as the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, the Bureau of Quarantine, or the Philippine Ports Authority, as appropriate.
 
The government, the stakeholders in the Philippine recruitment and manning industry, as well as foreign principals shall work in close coordination through tripartite consultations in upholding the provisions contained in the standard employment contracts signed by the workers. “
 
This was echoed by the Department of Foreign Affairs in their travel advisory of 20 March 2020 where it was stated that the travel ban on foreign arrivals does not cover arriving Filipinos.
 
 
Transportation of repatriated crewmembers from Manila/Luzon Airport to their respective provinces.
 
Movement of crewmembers by air and sea seems to be almost impossible because of cancellation of local flights and voyages.
 
As to the movement of repatriated crewmembers by land, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) is providing free shuttle service to stranded OFWs.  The OFWs may be shuttled from the Manila airport and for transport to designated drop off points in Dau, Mabalacat City (north of Metro Manila), Calamba, Laguna (south of Metro Manila) and within Metro Manila.
 
To help the OWWA, the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) also issued Resolution No. 15 issued on 24 March 2020 which provides that:
 
“Outbound and repatriated Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and stranded foreign nationals shall be granted free and unimpeded access to and from national government facilities such as airports, ferries, bus terminals, etc. notwithstanding any LGU (referring to Local Government Units) pronouncement to the contrary. The said free access shall extend to the vehicles carrying the aforementioned individuals in order for them to reach their final destination. No fee or any other requirement shall be imposed by the LGUs in this regard.” 
 
Admittedly, OWWA is experiencing difficulty on the ground to assist OFWs to go home to their respective provinces because of LGU checkpoints but with the IATF resolution on unimpeded access to roads by repatriated OFWs, this will hopefully be strictly observed by LGUs.
 
 
Mandatory Quarantine
 
The POEA has issued Memorandum Circular 03-20 stating that seafarers repatriated from vessels with documented COVID19 infection shall be subject to mandatory quarantine. For all other seafarers who do not exhibit any sign or symptom but has history of travel to China or history of exposure to confirmed COVID19 case, they are likewise required to undergo quarantine. The required quarantine is 14 days at home subject to the general guidelines found in Department of Health (DOH) Circular 0105 series of 2020 dated 27 February 2020.
 
Unless the seafarer is exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19, there seems to be no law requiring the employers to shoulder the costs of quarantine (e.g. if it will have to be undertaken outside the seafarer’s home). However, the President mentioned in his national address that assistance of private enterprises to persons affected are much encouraged.
 
However, in the FAQ portion of the DOH website posted on 2 March 2020 it is stated that OFWs may return home but upon “arrival, they will be taken care of in a health facility for monitoring and further medical management upon arrival for 14 days. If you have fever and/or cough upon arrival, immediately inform the quarantine medical officer/s on duty at the airport or seaport.”  Apparently, the DOH considers all returning OFWs as Persons Under Monitoring (PUM). The DOH has mentioned DOH Circular 0063-2020 as basis for this quarantine requirement. 
 
Initially, DOH Circular 0063-2020 was issued to govern repatriations from China but this is now invoked by the DOH for the mandatory quarantine requirement of repatriated OFWs such as Filipino seafarers. As the DOH has not designated and announced a quarantine facility for all repatriated OFWs, the seafarers to be repatriated should observe the 14 day quarantine either at home or if they are stranded in Metro Manila or other locality because of the ECQ, at hotels that are allowed to operate to accommodate stranded OFWs (in accordance with Department of Tourism Administrative Order No. 2020-001-B).
 
 
COVID19 as occupational disease
 
The POEA has declared in the same Memorandum Circular 03-20 that seafarers who contract COVID19 “shall be compensable by the Principals/employers.”. In which case, the obligations (for medical treatment, sickness allowance, etc.) under Section 20 of the POEA Contract shall apply.
 
For medically repatriated crew, they have to be referred to the company designated physicians. However, please refer to the clinic’s protocols on how to proceed given that most clinics have also closed or have maintained skeletal staff only. Clinics have made their own announcements on how to deal with medical emergency. Some clinics have also delayed the usual consultations to avoid physical contact with seafarers specially if there is no emergency involved or if they have not yet undergone 14 day quarantine.
 
If the seafarer is stuck in Manila because of medical treatment, the employer is responsible to pay for the reasonable living expenses of the seafarer while in Manila as this is considered incidental to his medical treatment. 
 
If the seafarer is residing outside Manila, it may be advisable to fly him directly to his home province (once domestic flights resume) and have him referred to a local doctor that is accredited/referred by the company designated physician.
 
 
Joining Crew Stranded in Manila
 
On 26 March 2020, the POEA issued Memorandum Circular No. 08 Series of 2020.
 
According to the POEA, all manning agencies shall provide assistance to joining crew whose flights were cancelled or crew change deferred and have been stranded in Metro Manila due to the ECQ. The assistance shall be in the form of temporary accommodation, food and transportation back to their provinces in coordination with OWWA.
 
Kindly note that this MC refers only to joining crew. It is expected that the POEA will issue an MC for seafarers who are repatriated and are stranded in Manila due to ECQ. 
 
Close Monitoring and Reporting of Incidents to the POEA Welfare and Employment Office/OFW Welfare Monitoring System
 
In MC 08-2020, the POEA also required manning agencies to closely monitor and coordinate with the Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) in extending needed assistance to seafarers. Incidents of stranding of joining crew, deferment of crew changes etc. shall also be reported to the POEA Welfare and Employment Office using the form attached to MC 08-2020. 
 
MC 07-2020 issued earlier on 18 March 2020 by the POEA also reminded manning agencies to monitor and report status of deployed seafarers through the OFW Welfare Monitoring System (OWMS). The POEA also informed manning agencies that further coordination on status of deployed workers can be made through telephone and electronic means with the POEA Workers Education and Welfare Monitoring System (WEWMD)
 
 
US$200 Cash Aid to Affected OFWs
 
The DOLE announced on 25 March 2020 that they will provide US$200 cash assistance to OFWs whose work was affected by COVID19. To avail of the program, seafarers must submit their certificate of employment issued by their manning agencies. The application will be evaluated by the POLO or the OWWA, as the case may be. We are still waiting for the written guidelines on this cash assistance program. 
 
 
Emergency Powers Law
 
There is a new law (Republic Act 11469) giving broad emergency powers to the President that took effect 25 March 2020. No doubt, there will be changes in the next coming days in the exercise of the emergency powers given under the new law.
 
The situation is very fluid and there are new developments almost every day. Please refer to further updates that we will try to publish. 
 
 
 References and links:
- Cebu Governor Executive Order No.  5-N series of 2020; 25 March 2020
https://cnnphilippines.com/regional/2020/3/26/Cebu-Province-enhanced-community-quarantine.html
- POEA Memorandum Circular 7A-2020; 20 March 2020
http://www.poea.gov.ph/memorandumcirculars/2020/MC-7A-2020.pdf
- POEA Memorandum Circular No. 07-2020; 18 March 2020
http://www.poea.gov.ph/memorandumcirculars/2020/MC-07-2020.pdf
- Department of Foreign Affairs travel advisory of 20 March 2020
https://dfa.gov.ph/dfa-news/statements-and-advisoriesupdate/26399-travel-advisory-inbound-travel-restrictions-by-philippine-government-on-filipino-travelers
- OWWA shuttle announcement
https://owwa.gov.ph/index.php/news/central/93-owwa-provides-assistance-to-ofws-amid-luzon-wide-lockdown
- Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) Resolution No. 15; 24 March 2020
http://www.covid19.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/IATF-Reso-No-15.pdf
- POEA Memorandum Circular 03-20; 27 February 2020
http://www.poea.gov.ph/memorandumcirculars/2020/MC-03-2020.pdf
- Department of Health (DOH) Circular 0105 series of 2020; 27 February 2020
https://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/health-update/dc2020-0105.pdf
- FAQ portion of the DOH website; 2 March 2020
https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/19953
- DOH Circular 0063-2020; 3 Feb 2020
https://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/health-update/DC2020-0040-Reiteration-of-DM2020-0063-Interim-Guidelines-on-Repatriation-of-Overseas-Filipinos-due-to-2019-nCoV-ARD.pdf
- Department of Tourism Administrative Order No. 2020-001-B
http://www.tourism.gov.ph/files/publications/AO2020-001-B.pdf
- POEA Standard Employment Contract
http://www.poea.gov.ph/memorandumcirculars/2010/10.pdf
- POEA Memorandum Circular No. 08 – 2020
http://www.poea.gov.ph/memorandumcirculars/2020/MC-08-2020.pdf
- DOLE announcement on $200 cash assistance to OFWs
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1097814
- Republic Act 11469
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2020/03mar/20200324-RA-11469-RRD.pdf

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

Impact of COVID19: Guidelines in the Treatment of Seafarers in Light of 120/240 Day Rule

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 6 April 2020 (Issue 2020/07)


 

Impact of COVID19:  Guidelines in the Treatment of Seafarers in Light of 120/240 Day Rule

Background

The President of the Philippines has placed the entire Luzon (the largest and most important island of the country where the capital city is located and where the manning agents hold their offices and the company-designated physicians have their hospitals and clinics) under the so called “enhanced community quarantine” (ECQ) due to COVID19.

While under the state of ECQ, the Supreme Court physically closes all courts nationwide, government offices like NLRC and NCMB have suspended hearings, the POEA is unable to process contracts of seafarers, whether manually or in-house, and the most critical during these extraordinary times, is the suspension of public transportation. With the suspension of public transportation, employers in the private sector were forced to close down their operations except those in banking, food, retail and health. Domestic and international travel restrictions are now in force, although Overseas Filipino Workers are still allowed to fly out of the country.

The “work from home” scheme has been adopted by the private sector during the duration of the ECQ. With the implementation of the said scheme, the company-designated physicians informed manning agents that seafarers who are undergoing treatment on an “out-patient” basis cannot report to their clinics for the duration of the ECQ and are advised to have their treatment at the clinic/hospital near the place of their residence, where possible / appropriate. Seafarers, however, are required to send the medical reports issued by the doctors who provided the interim treatment to the company-designated physicians (CDP) via electronic mail. On the basis of the said reports, the CDP will evaluate the seafarers and accordingly, send updates to the manning agents/principals.

Effect of the ECQ on the 120/240 Day Rule

Under the present state of jurisprudence particularly in the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in the case of Arnel T. Gere vs. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc., et. al.G.R. No. 226656, April 23, 2018, the shipowners, to avoid being held liable for the maximum disability benefits provided under the POEA SEC or the applicable CBA, must strictly abide with the following rules:
 

1.     The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him. 

2.     If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total.

3.     If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period.

4.     If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

 
In this regard, the company-designated physician is mandated to issue a medical certificate, which should be personally received by the seafarer, or, if not practicable, sent to him/her by any other means sanctioned by the Rules of Court.
 
Indisputably, the enforced travel restrictions effectively force the CDP to suspend work and prevent the seafarers from reporting regularly to the CDP throughout the duration of the ECQ.  Shipowners are now reviewing their options vis-à-vis their desire to continue providing medical attention to their seafarers without however jeopardizing their position against the strict application by the courts of the 120/240 day rule.

Safety Measures

Shipowners cannot predict how the Philippine labor courts will consider the effect of COVID-19 in their interpretation of the 120/240 day ruling. To guard against the application of the State policy of favoring labor in case of doubt, shipowners may consider adopting the following guidelines in providing medical attention to their seafarers:
 

1.     The CDP must still issue a final assessment prior to the end of the 120 day period. 

2.     If treatment is justified to be extended, the CDP must issue a written report stating his justifications for extending the period of treatment.

3.     If treatment is extended, a final assessment must still be issued before the lapse of 240 days. Shipowners must check all cases approaching 240 days and take immediate action regarding seeking final assessment.

 
Arguably, during the implementation of the ECQ, the strict observance of the 120/240 day period will not be beneficial to the seafarer as it will limit or shorten the period of his treatment because it will lessen the frequency of the visits that he can make to the CDP. If the Shipowners wish to continue providing medical attention to the seafarers by extending the period of treatment by another 30 days or even more depending on when the ECQ will be lifted, the shipowners may be protected though the following precautionary measures:
 

4.     If the seafarer agrees, the seafarer will be required to make a written request to the shipowners that his treatment be extended up to such number of days that the Island of Luzon is under ECQ. The request must be handwritten by the seafarer in the language or dialect for which the seafarer is very much familiar with. 

5.     The medical report to be issued by the CDP during the “extended” period must contain a statement that treatment will be continued upon written request of the seafarer.


The shipowners may alter, modify, improve or adopt the above guidelines in its entirety depending on how the guidelines may best possibly protect their interests.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

Firm Announcement – Enhanced Community Quarantine extended throughout Luzon Island, Metro Manila

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 8 April 2020 (Issue 2020/08)


 

Firm Announcement – Enhanced Community Quarantine extended throughout Luzon Island, Metro Manila
 
To our valued colleagues and friends, the Philippine Government has now extended the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) over the entire Luzon Island, including Metro Manila, until 30 April 2020.  Originally, the ECQ was supposed to end on 12 April 2020 but due to the rising COVID-19 infections, an extension was deemed necessary to hopefully prevent further spread.
 
The extended ECQ would still follow the original scheme where strict home quarantine shall be implemented in all households.  Public transportation shall be suspended and workers from both the public and private sector, unless considered as essential or critical, should be in home quarantine and if able, should work from home.
 
Considering the extension, we do foresee that various government agencies (NLRC, NCMB, courts) will adjust their initial guidelines on the implementation of the ECQ.
 
While our physical offices will remain closed for the duration of the extended ECQ, work from home arrangements have been adopted by Del Rosario & Del Rosario as well as Del Rosario Pandiphil and we shall continue to assist remotely through calls and emails. We again thank everyone for their continued support and understanding during these extraordinary times.

 

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 

Firm Announcement – Enhanced Community Quarantine extended until 15 May 2020 throughout Metro Manila and other provinces; General Community Quarantine in low to moderate risk areas

$
0
0

Philippine Shipping Update – Manning Industry

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 24 April 2020 (Issue 2020/09)


 

Firm Announcement – Enhanced Community Quarantine extended until 15 May 2020 throughout Metro Manila and other provinces; General Community Quarantine in low to moderate risk areas
 
To our valued colleagues and friends, the Philippine Government has further extended the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) over Metro Manila and other provinces of the Philippines considered as high risk areas until 15 May 2020.  The initial extension of the ECQ was supposed to end on 30 April 2020 but another extension was deemed necessary to further contain the COVID-19 infection. 
 
The ECQ will also be maintained in the following provinces: Benguet, Pangasinan, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales, Batangas, Laguna, Cavite, Rizal, Quezon, Oriental Mindoro, Occidental Mindoro, Albay, and Catanduanes, Davao del Norte, and Davao City.
 
However, places where there is low or moderate risks for COVID-19 will now be placed under general community quarantine (GCQ).  The moderate-risk areas are: Abra, Ilocos Norte, La Union, Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Marinduque, Camarines Sur, Aklan, Capiz, Samar, Western Samar, Zamboanga Del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Misamis Occidental, Misamis Oriental, North Cotabato, South Cotabato, Maguindanao, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Siquijor, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Sultan Kudarat, Lanao del Sur.
 
The low-risk areas are: Apayao, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Kalinga, Ilocos Sur, Batanes, Quirino, Aurora, Palawan, Romblon, Camarines Norte, Sorsogon, Masbate, Guimaras, Bohol, Biliran, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Southern Leyte, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao Occidental, Sarangani, Agusan del Sur, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Norte, Basilan and Sulu.
 
The government is still evaluating whether the other provinces shall be placed under ECQ or GCQ.
 
A GCQ limits people’s movements to accessing basic necessities. Work in some predetermined industries can resume with limited work force. Public Transportation may also resume in limited capacity.  Uniformed personnel and quarantine personnel will still be present at border points during the GCQ. Meanwhile, an ECQ requires strict home quarantine in all households, suspension of transportation, regulation of food and essential health services, and heightened presence of uniformed personnel enforcing quarantine protocols.
 
For the entire duration of the ECQ, all Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) controlled ports shall remain open FOR CARGO OPERATIONS subject to the requirements of the Bureau of Quarantine and the Department of Health.
 
Considering the recent pronouncement of the government, we do foresee that various government agencies (NLRC, NCMB, courts) will further adjust their initial guidelines on the implementation of the ECQ/GCQ.
 
While our physical offices will remain closed for the duration of the extended ECQ, work from home arrangements have been adopted by Del Rosario & Del Rosario as well as Del Rosario Pandiphil and we shall continue to assist remotely through calls and emails. We again thank everyone for their continued support and understanding during this extraordinary time.

 

Areas of Specialization: Shipping, Labour, Transport, Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Insurance, Immigration, Litigation, Arbitration, Intellectual Property
 
2018 AsiaLaw Profiles: Outstanding in Shipping, Maritime & Aviation; Recommended in Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Intellectual Property, Labour & Employment

“Del Rosario & Del Rosario has the strongest shipping practice in the Philippines. They definitely deserves the top ranking.” AsiaLaw Profiles 2018

“We rely on them when there’s a problem. We can trust them. And they can deliver the service required.” The Legal 500 2018

“For almost four decades, DelRosarioLaw has led in the shipping and transport practice in the Philippines by assisting stakeholders in fostering institutional changes to ensure the continued viability of the local shipping and manning sectors. This enduring reputation has made the firm’s opinion in major maritime policies of the country most sought after.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2018


Del Rosario & Del Rosario, a four-decades-old firm, is considered to be among the top shipping and maritime practices in the country. It has also built a formidable reputation in insurance and reinsurance, and has more than 30 lawyers, including 10 partners.” The Philippines Law Firm Awards 2018.

Facebook

Twitter

Website

This publication aims to provide commentary on issues affecting the manning industry, analysis of recent cases and updates on legislation.  It is meant to be brief and is not intended to be legal advice.  To subscribe or for further information, please email ruben.delrosario@delrosario-pandiphil.com .

 
 
 

 

 
Viewing all 98 articles
Browse latest View live