Gawat, Ron - Individual Paper

I
If we compare the doctrines Overseas Maritime Labor made between

Justices Reyes and Brion, the former is more considerate on the cause of
the laborers. Reyes gave a higher credit on the welfare of the ones that
need the legislation, rather than what the law directly says. In one of his
decisions, he ruled that the law does not require that the illness should be
incurable. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary
work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability.
An award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to
the purpose of the benefit, which is to help the employee in making ends
meet at the time when he is unable to work.
In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, likewise involving a seafarer

who had sustained a spinal injury and had lost two-thirds of his trunk’s
lifting power, the Court is emphatic that:
Indeed, under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only those injuries or

disabilities that are classified as Grade 1 may be considered as total
and permanent. However, if those injuries or disabilities with a
disability grading from 2 to 14, hence, partial and permanent, would
incapacitate a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a
period of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for
further medical treatment, then he is, under legal contemplation,
totally and permanently disabled.
The POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen is designed

primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of
their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must,
therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their
favor. Only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.
Justice Reyes gives more stress on understanding the purpose of
any petition and of the laborers. It is indeed that the laborers play a very
crucial role in building the industry. As they say, it is laborers that are the
lifeblood of a construction site, they make it tick bringing everything
together, they, as much as heavy machinery in their own way, power the
construction industry. It is the laborers that make an industry work and
grow.
In Maunlad V Camoral, the court ruled that the inability to work for
more than 240 days equivalent to permanent and total disability benefits:
In this case, the respondent was assessed by the company-

designated doctors with a grade “10” disability on the 150th day of his
treatment. However, the company-designated physicians likewise
stated that with the disability, the seafarer will not be able to return to
his previous work. Camoral likewise presented a medical opinion
from his own doctor declaring him unfit to return to sea duty.
The Court did not honor the grade “10” disability assessment issued
by the company-designated physician as basis for disability benefits
payable and instead held that Camoral is entitled to full disability benefits
as he is now permanently and totally disabled. They noted that the
company doctor, as well as Camoral’s personal doctor was of the same
opinion that fitness to go back to work is no longer attainable. Thus, the
Court held that while the seafarer is partially injured or disabled, he must
not be precluded from earning by doing the same work he had before his
injury or disability or that he is accustomed or trained to do. Otherwise, if
his illness or injury prevents him from engaging in gainful employment for
more than 120 days or 240 days, as the case may be, then he shall be
deemed totally and permanently disabled. It is of no consequence that he
recovered, for what is important is that he was unable to perform his
customary work for more than 120/240 days, and this constitutes
permanent total disability.
On the other hand, Justice Brion is more leaning to the direct
interpretation of the law. He always looks into the technicalities of the
provisions of the law. He gives great importance to the what the law directly
says. In one of his decisions, he ruled the timeframe provided by the law.
In Vergara, as between the determinations made by the company-

designated physician and the doctor appointed by the seaman, the former
should prevail absent any indication that the above procedure was
complied with.
The POEA [SEC] and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer
sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his
fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-
designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees
with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the opinion of a third
doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be
the decision final and binding on them.
Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third
opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be
done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner
did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that
the company-designated doctor’s certification is the final determination that
must prevail.
In Phulman Marine v Cabanban. Justice Brion made his decision in

line with Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the
Labor Code, and following our various pronouncements, Section 20-B of
the POEA-SE, which evidently shows that it is the company-designated
physician who primarily assesses the degree of the seafarer's disability.
Upon the seafarers repatriation for medical treatment, and during the
course of such treatment, the seafarer is under total temporary disability
and receives medical allowance until the company-designated physician
declares his fitness to work resumption or determines the degree of the
seafarers permanent disability - either total or partial.
The company-designated physician should, however, make the

declaration or determination within 120 days, otherwise, the law considers
the seafarer's disability as total and permanent and the latter shall be
entitled to disability benefits. Should the seafarer still require medical
treatment for more than 120 days, the period granted to the company-
designated physician to make the declaration of the fitness to work or
determination of the permanent disability may be extended, but not to
exceed 240 days. At any time during this latter period, the company-
designated physician may make the declaration or determination: either the
seafarer will no longer be entitled to any sickness allowance as he is
already declared fit to work, or he shall be entitled to receive disability
benefits depending on the degree of his permanent disability.
The seafarer is not, of course, irretrievably bound by the findings of

the company-designated physician as the above provisions allow him to
seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of
disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician
and the seafarers appointed physician, the parties shall jointly agree to
refer the matter to a third doctor whose findings shall be final and binding
on both.
II
Having read the decisions made by the two Justices, I think that what
should prevail is Reyes. He has more compassion in the welfare of the
laborers. He didn’t make it difficult for the laborers to receive the benefit
that they deserve. His decisions are based primarily on what the laborers
really intended to begin with. He knew that the law should be more
understanding to the laborers and that these cases are of high urgency to
make sure that the laborers can really get compensated.
The decisions made by Justice Brion are more coherent with the
direct interpretation of the provisions of the law. He gave importance to
what the law says, rather than analyzing why the laborer/worker needed it.
This is the reason why I thought that Reyes’ decisions are more timely and
more liberal. Justice Reyes thoroughly looks into the lens of the
laborers/workers to make sure that his decisions will benefit those that
really need the right protection. This is a also the same mindset that I would
like to have if ever I become a lawyer. I wanted to have this thinking that
my decisions should not only look into the provisions of the law, but more
importantly to those that will be affected.

Gawat, Ron - Individual Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gawat, Ron - Individual Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gawat, Ron - Individual Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

If we compare the doctrines Overseas Maritime Labor made between

In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, likewise involving a seafarer

Indeed, under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only those injuries or

The POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen is designed

In this case, the respondent was assessed by the company-

In Vergara, as between the determinations made by the company-

In Phulman Marine v Cabanban. Justice Brion made his decision in

The company-designated physician should, however, make the

The seafarer is not, of course, irretrievably bound by the findings of

You might also like