Hylie Jane M.

Hung
11208392

December 8, 2014
DOCULMG K31
Are We There Yet?

Seafarers are treated differently from other employees in terms of labor

contracts. Despite of being employed for many several occasions, a seafarer can
never be considered as a regular employee due to the nature of their work of not
having regular employment season. For this reason, seafarers receive special
arrangements to protect their interests. One arrangement is that when a seafarer
is unable to work for 120 days caused by a disability or medical treatment, he will
receive a permanent and disability benefits amounting to $60,000 or more as
provided in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard
Employment Contract. However, confusion arises because of contrasting ruling
of cases about on what really should be the number of days before a seafarer will
be entitled to the Permanent and Disability benefits.
Permanent disability is defined as the inability of a worker to perform his
job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any
part of his body 1 ; and total disability is defined as: the disablement of an
employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he was
trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his
mentality and attainments could do.2
In the cases Crystal Shipping, Inc., and/or A/S Stein Line Bergen vs.
Deo P. Natividad 3 ; United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America
Line, Inc. vs. Francisco Beseril4; Bernardo Remigio vs. NLRC, C.F. Sharp
Crew Management, Inc. & New Commodore Cruise Line, Inc.5; Micronesia
Resources, Dynacom Shield Shipping Ltd. and Singa Ship Management,
A.S. vs. Fabiolo Cantomayor6; Mars C. Palisoc vs. Easways Marine, Inc.,
1

Crystal Shipping, Inc., and/or A/S Stein Line Bergen vs. Deo P. Natividad G.R. No. 154798, October
20,2005
2 Crystal Shipping, Inc., and/or A/S Stein Line Bergen vs. Deo P. Natividad G.R. No. 154798, October
20,2005
3 Crystal Shipping, Inc., and/or A/S Stein Line Bergen vs. Deo P. Natividad G.R. No. 154798, October
20,2005
4 United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. vs. Francisco Beseril (G.R. No.
165934, April 12, 2006)
5 Bernardo Remigio vs. NLRC, C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. & New Commodore Cruise
Line, Inc. (G.R. No. 159887, April 12, 2006)
6 Micronesia Resources, Dynacom Shield Shipping Ltd. and Singa Ship Management, A.S. vs.
Fabiolo Cantomayor (G.R. No. 156573, June 19, 2007

Capt Mario R. Braza, and Capt. Macario Terencio 7 ; and lastly, Philimare,
Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., Bonifacio Gomez and Alberto Gomez vs.
Benedicto Suganob8, the concept of unable to work for 120 days caused by a
disability will result to permanent and total disability was used.
The common denominator in the aforementioned cases is that the type of
disability that caused the inability of the seafarer to work is not relevant and the
only important factor is that the said seafarer is unable to work for 120 days
caused by the disability. Also, as what happened in the case United Philippine
Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. vs. Francisco Beseril9, being
declared as fit to work after the 120 days will be useless for it will not be
recognized and the seafarer will still be entitled to the benefits. Moreover, in the
case of Bernardo Remigio vs. NLRC, C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. &
New Commodore Cruise Line, Inc.10, it was determined that his ailment is not
part of the schedule of disability list, therefore he should not be entitled to said
benefits. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court still granted him the permanent
disability benefits which is explained by citing Bejerano V. ECC :
"Disability should not be understood more on its medical
significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent
total disability means disablement of an employee to earn
wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that
[he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of
work, which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could
do. It does not mean absolute helplessness."11
After being accustomed to the 120-day rule, the court suddenly
releases a ruling that indicates another rule as portrayed in the case,
Jesus Vergara vs. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. and Atlantic
Marine Ltd.

); Mars C. Palisoc vs. Easways Marine, Inc., Capt Mario R. Braza, and Capt. Macario Terencio
(G.R. No. 152273, September 11, 2007)
8 Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., Bonifacio Gomez and Alberto Gomez vs. Benedicto
Suganob (G.R. No. 168753, July 9, 2008);
9 United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. vs. Francisco Beseril (G.R. No.
165934, April 12, 2006)
10 Bernardo Remigio vs. NLRC, C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. & New Commodore Cruise
Line, Inc. (G.R. No. 159887, April 12, 2006)
11 Bernardo Remigio vs. NLRC, C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. & New Commodore Cruise
Line, Inc. (G.R. No. 159887, April 12, 2006)