Beneficent provisions

Jose C. Sison
Philippine Star

Labor contracts are impressed with public interest so it must be construed fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of the workers, particularly the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean going vessels. This is the principle applied in resolving this case of Jess.

On November 20, 1996, Jess applied for shipboard employment with a duly licensed manning agency (POMI). As standard operating procedure, POMI directed Jess to undergo the pre-employment medical examination at its accredited clinic. On the query whether he previously suffered ulcer, he ticked “no”. After examination he was reported fit to work.

Hence Jess was hired as 4th engineer on board the ocean going vessel of POMI’s principal, the CPSM. The employment contract stipulated that he would work for nine months with a monthly salary of $824  and a fixed overtime rate of $459. He also signed the Standard Employment Contract Addendum barring alcohol, drugs and any medication on board without permission from the master of the vessel. Only drugs prescribed by the doctor on board or ashore and kept at the vessel’s hospital may be used with the approval and supervision of the captain. Any seafarer taking prescribed medication must inform the company master manning agent or drug and alcohol test collector of this fact. Violation of these provisions is considered a fundamental breach of the employment contract.

Jess departed on March 28, 1997 and embarked on the vessel the following day. Early in his stint, he experienced stomach pains which became unbearable during the second month especially when his captain required him to work even during meal hours and the meals served on board did not fit the Filipinos’ dietary preference. Despite taking pieces of Cimetidine which he brought along with him, apparently without the captain’s permission purposely to prevent the recurrence of his ulcer while on board, his condition worsened and he severely lost weight. Thus when the ship docked in Germany, he requested for medical treatment during which he was diagnosed to be suffering from relapse of gastric ulcer that he had two years before. After through diagnostic examination and treatment and finding him fit for repatriation, Jess was sent back to the Philippines on June 19, 1997.

Back here, Jess asked for financial assistance and medical treatment for his illness from POMI. But POMI refused so he was constrained to seek medical treatment at a hospital at his own expense and asked for reimbursement. POMI again refused. It likewise disallowed his claim for unpaid salary. Thus Jess filed a complaint against POMI for unpaid wages, sick wage allowance and medical expenses.

POMI denied liability. It claimed that Jess committed misrepresentation when he concealed his medical history that he suffered from ulcer two years ago. He also breached his employment contract when he brought on board his medicines for ulcer without the captain’s permission. The claim for medical and sickness allowance cannot be granted because the relapse of the ulcer was not work related as it already existed when Jess applied with POMI which he intentionally concealed so he could be hired, POMI argued. Besides, POMI claimed that his unpaid salary was already used for expenses of his repatriation. Was POMI correct?

No. An ailment contracted even prior to his employment does not detract from the compensability of the disease. It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development and acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits incident thereto. It is enough that the employment had contributed even in a small measure, to the development of the disease.

In this case Jess was required to work even during mealtime and the meals served on board were unfit for Filipinos’ dietary preference. Such plight took a toll on Jess’ health and surely contributed, even in a slight degree to the relapse of his illness.

While he committed misrepresentation by answering “no’ in his medical history as to his previous ulcer, he nevertheless passed the pre-employment medical examination and was reported fit to work and in fact allowed to work on board for more than two months. Hence such misrepresentation cannot be made the basis for denying his claims under the contract. Under the beneficent provisions of Labor Contracts that must be construed fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen, it is enough that the work has contributed to the development of the disease.

Possession of medicines on board without the captain’s permission was indeed a violation of the Standard Employment Addendum as would warrant dismissal. But there must be compliance with the procedure provided in the contract which requires: (1) written notice of the grounds for the charges, (2) formal investigation giving the seafarer opportunity to defend himself, (3) written notice of the results of the investigation and the imposition of the penalty if justified. In this case, the prescribed disciplinary procedure was not followed.

Hence the claims of Jess for unpaid salary and sickness allowance for 59 days amounting to $2,735.15 or its peso equivalent plus P5,000 for reimbursement of medical expenses should be paid by POMI (De Jesus vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. 151158, August 17, 2007).

*    *    *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net