Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JESUS E. VERGARA v. HAMMONIA MARITIME SERVICES

This case has been cited 26 times or more.

	GR No. 192389 2015-09-23	C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT v. ROLANDO F. OBLIGADO SERENO, C.J.
We also reiterate the settled rule that Standard Employment Contracts issued by the POEA must be read and understood in accordance with Philippine laws, particularly Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code and the applicable implementing rules and regulations.[53] Petitioner's insistence on the exclusive application of the POEA-SEC to this case is consequently baseless.
	GR No. 206285 2015-02-04	VERITAS MARITIME CORPORATION v. RAMON A. GEPANAGA MENDOZA, J.
In their petition, petitioners insist that Gepanaga is not entitled to permanent disability benefits, since he was declared "fit to work" by the company after receiving treatment from the day he was repatriated on December 3, 2008 to March 4, 2009 for a total of 91 days. Citing the Court's ruling in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[19] (Vergara), the petitioners argue that Gepanaga's alleged inability to work after the lapse of 120 days from the time he suffered his injury does not automatically entitle him to the grant of permanent and total disability benefits.[20]
	GR No. 211211 2015-01-14	ROMMEL B. DARAUG v. KGJS FLEET MANAGEMENT MANILA MENDOZA, J.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[31] (Vergara), it was stated that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the POEA, has simplified the determination of liability for work-related death, illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working on foreign ocean-going vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment of the seaman for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owner of the vessel and the covered seaman.
	GR No. 209201 2014-11-19	NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES INC. v. MICHAEL D. DESPABELADERAS MENDOZA, J.
Petitioners contend that the 120-day rule applied by the CA as basis for granting Michael's permanent total disability benefits was already abandoned and no longer controlling. In support of their position, petitioners cited the cases of PHILASIA Shipping Agency Corporation, Inc. v. Tomacruz,[15] citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.(Vergara),[16] and Santiago v. Pacbasin Shipmanagement, Inc.(Pacbasin),[17] where it was clarified that the temporary total disability period of 120 days may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days. Thus, petitioners claim that the seafarer's cause of action arises only after the lapse of a maximum 240-day period.
	GR No. 200566 2014-09-17	JEBSEN MARITIME INC. v. WILFREDO E. RAVENA BRION, J.
The entitlement of an overseas seafarer to disability benefits is governed by the law, the employment contract and the medical findings.[27]
	GR No. 203472 2014-07-09	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. HENRY M. SIMBAJON BRION, J.
"The employment of seafarers and its incidents, including claims for death benefits, are governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired. Such contracts have the force of law between the parties as long as its stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy."[54] By way of background, every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA-SEC as a condition sine qua non to the seafarer's deployment for overseas work.[55]
	GR No. 193628 2014-03-19	SPLASH PHILIPPINES v. RONULFO G. RUIZO BRION, J.
The 120-day rule laid down in Crystal Shipping and other cases similarly resolved, however, had already been clarified or modified. In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[26] the Court declared: [T]he respondent in the case "was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability." This declaration of a permanent total disability after the initial 120 days of temporary total disability cannot, however, be simply lifted and applied as a general rule for all cases in all contexts. The specific context of the application should be considered, as we must do in the application of all rulings and even of the law and of the implementing regulations.
	GR No. 178564 2014-01-15	INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution [36] dated March 31, 2004. Dissatisfied, he filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
	GR No. 178564 2014-01-15	INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On October 31, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, [37] holding that grave abuse of discretion tainted the NLRC ruling.
	GR No. 192034 2014-01-13	ALPHA SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. ELEOSIS V. CALO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Amended Rules on Employee's Compensation[35] and the pronouncement in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[36] which held that if the 120-day period elapsed and no declaration of disability or fitness is made because the employee required further medical treatment, then treatment should continue up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists; a temporary total disability only 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. The CA held that herein respondent was repatriated on October 12, 2004, and his last medical examination was conducted on October 14, 2005; clearly, more than 240 days have elapsed without respondent having been declared either fit to work or permanently disabled. He was declared fit to work only on July 18, 2006, or long after his labor Complaint was filed and almost two years from his repatriation; respondent is thus deemed permanently disabled. Finally, the CA declared that respondent's permanent disability was total, considering that both his personal physician Dr. Vicaldo and the company-designated physician Dr. Cruz declared him "unfit to work as seaman in any capacity" and "is not expected to land a gainful
	GR No. 194362 2013-06-26	PHILIPPINE HAMMONIA SHIP AGENCY v. EULOGIO V. DUMADAG BRION, J.
On a related matter, the petitioners fault the CA in disregarding the procedure in the POEA-SEC in the resolution of disability claims vis-a-vis the seafarer's disability rating or fitness to work. Citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[21] they posit that although Dumadag has the right to contest the assessment of the company-designated physician, the findings of his doctors are not binding as the POEA-SEC and even the parties' CBA expressly provide that the parties may agree to consult a third doctor whose opinion shall be binding on them. They submit that since Dumadag failed to observe the procedure, the finding of the company specialist that he is fit to work should be upheld.
	GR No. 191903 2013-06-19	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. NLRC BRION, J.
3. The CA gravely erred in applying the 120-day rule to justify the award of permanent total disability compensation to Capoy. The rule has already been modified in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[29] where the Court held that the company doctor, overseeing a seafarer's treatment, is given a maximum of 240 days to assess the seafarer's disability or declare him fit to work. It is only after the lapse of the 240-day period and the company doctor fails to give a final assessment of the seafarer's medical condition may the seafarer be considered permanently and totally disabled.
	GR No. 168703 2013-02-26	RAMON G. NAZARENO v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC. PERALTA, J.
It bears to note, at this juncture, that this Court is aware of its ruling in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[33], wherein it sustained the findings of the company-designated physician vis-a-vis the contrary opinion of the doctors consulted by the seafarer. This Court so ruled on two basic grounds. First, the seafarer failed to follow the procedure outlined in the Standard Employment Contract he signed, wherein it was provided that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed upon jointly between the employer and the seafarer and the third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. This Court held that, for failure of the seafarer to follow this procedure, the company doctor's determination should prevail, especially in view of the fact that the company exerted real effort to provide the seafarer with medical assistance, through the company-designated physician, which eventually led to the seafarer's full recovery. Second, the seafarer never raised the issue of the company-designated doctor's competence until he filed a petition with this Court. On the contrary, he accepted the company doctor's assessment of his fitness and even executed a certification to this effect.
	GR No. 198501 2013-01-30	KESTREL SHIPPING CO. v. FRANCISCO D. MUNAR REYES, J.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[32] this Court read the POEA-SEC in harmony with the Labor Code and the AREC in interpreting in holding that: (a) the 120 days provided under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC is the period given to the employer to determine fitness to work and when the seafarer is deemed to be in a state of total and temporary disability; (b) the 120 days of total and temporary disability may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days should the seafarer require further medical treatment; and (c) a total and temporary disability becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within 120 or 240 days, as the case may be, or upon the expiration of the said periods without a declaration of either fitness to work or permanent disability and the seafarer is still unable to resume his regular seafaring duties. Quoted below are the relevant portions of this Court's Decision dated October 6, 2008: In real terms, this means that the shipowner?an employer operating outside Philippine jurisdiction?does not subject itself to Philippine laws, except to the extent that it concedes the coverage and application of these laws under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. On the matter of disability, the employer is not subject to Philippine jurisdiction in terms of being compelled to contribute to the State Insurance Fund that, under the Labor Code, Philippine employers are obliged to support. (This Fund, administered by the Employees' Compensation Commission, is the source of work-related compensation payments for work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses.) Instead, the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides its own system of disability compensation that approximates (and even exceeds) the benefits provided under Philippine law. The standard terms agreed upon, as above pointed out, are intended to be read and understood in accordance with Philippine laws, particularly, Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code and the applicable implementing rules and regulations in case of any dispute, claim or grievance.
	GR No. 172086 2012-12-03	CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT v. SALVADOR T. SERNA BRION, J.
As a final point, the petitioners' discussion on the distinction between disability benefits under the Labor Code and those under the 1996 POEA-SEC holds no particular significance in this case. The discussion was prompted by the petitioners' observation that while Serna sought benefits under the 1996 POEA-SEC, he alleged that he had been ill for more than 120 days. The mistake, however, cannot defeat Serna's claim. The petitioners omit to mention that Serna claimed disability benefits under the parties' CBA, not simply under the 1996 POEA-SEC.[42] In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[43] we stated that the POEA-SEC is supplemented by the CBA between the owner of the vessel and the covered seafarers. In this case, the pertinent CBA provides: Permanent Medical Unfitness A seafarer whose disability is assessed at 50% or more under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, shall for the purpose of this paragraph is regarded as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity and entitled to 100% compensation, i.e. US$80,000 for officers and US$60,000 for ratings.[44]
	GR No. 195168 2012-11-12	BENJAMIN C. MILLAN v. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[22] the Court elucidated on the seeming conflict between Paragraph 3, Section 20(B)[23] of the POEA-SEC (Department Order No. 004-00) and Article 192 (c)(1)[24] of the Labor Code in relation to Section 2(a), Rule X[25] of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, thus: As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition. (Italics in the original)
	GR No. 162809 2012-09-05	PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING v. BENJAMIN D. PENALES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court finds petitioners to be mistaken in their notion that in determining the disability benefits due a seafarer, only the POEA SEC, specifically its schedule of benefits, must be considered. This Court has ruled that such is governed not only by medical findings but also by contract and law. [26] The applicability of the Labor Code, particularly Article 192(c)(1), to seafarers, is already a settled issue.[27] This Court, in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta, [28] reiterating our ruling in Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] held: The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under [Executive Order] No. 247 to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas." Section 29 of the 1996 POEA [Standard Employment Contract] itself provides that "[a]ll rights and obligations of the parties to [the] Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory." Even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to "the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects."
	GR No. 177907 2012-08-29	FAIR SHIPPING CORP. v. JOSELITO T. MEDEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[39] the Court discussed how the above-mentioned provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing rules should be read in conjunction with the first paragraph of Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA SEC, which states: 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
	GR No. 181180 2012-08-15	PHILASIA SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION v. ANDRES G. TOMACRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Entitlement of seafarers to disability benefits is governed not only by medical findings but also by contract and by law.[41] By contract, Department Order No. 4, series of 2000, of the Department of Labor and Employment (POEA SEC) and the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement bind the seafarer and the employer.[42] By law, the Labor Code provisions on disability apply with equal force to seafarers.[43]
	GR No. 193679 2012-07-18	C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT v. JOEL D. TAOK REYES, J.
The importance of this 120-day period cannot be overemphasized that the CA's failure to consider and apply it in the disposition of this case strikes this Court as absurd. In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[25] this Court discussed the significance of the 120-day period as one when the seafarer is considered to be totally yet temporarily disabled, thus, entitling him to sickness wages. This is also the period given to the employer to determine whether the seafarer is fit for sea duty or permanently disabled and the degree of such disability.
	GR No. 194677 2012-04-18	ALEN H. SANTIAGO v. PACBASIN SHIPMANAGEMENT MENDOZA, J.
Pacbasin countered that the case of Crystal Shipping v. Natividad was already abandoned and superseded by the case of Jesus Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services.[10] In said case, the Court ruled that a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within the period he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without the declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.[11]
	GR No. 194677 2012-04-18	ALEN H. SANTIAGO v. PACBASIN SHIPMANAGEMENT MENDOZA, J.
Crystal Shipping was a case where the seafarer was completely unable to work for three years and was indisputably unfit for sea duty "due to respondent's need for regular medical check-up and treatment which would not be available if he were at sea." While the case was not clear on how the initial 120-day and the subsequent temporary total disability period operated, what appears clear is that the disability went beyond 240 days without any declaration that the seafarer was fit to resume work. Under the circumstances, a ruling of permanent and total disability was called for, fully in accordance with the operation of the period for entitlement that we described above.[19] (Emphases supplied)
	GR No. 177578 2012-01-25	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[30] we also said that the standard terms of the POEA Standard Employment Contract agreed upon are intended to be read and understood in accordance with Philippine laws, particularly, Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code, as amended, and the applicable implementing rules and regulations in case of any dispute, claim or grievance.
	GR No. 186180 2010-03-22	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. NLRC BRION, J.
Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation with Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the Labor Code. By contract, the POEA-SEC, as provided under Department Order No. 4, series of 2000 of the Department of Labor and Employment, and the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) bind the seaman and his employer to each other.[19]
	GR No. 184722 2010-03-15	ALEX C. COOTAUCO v. MMS PHIL. MARITIME SERVICES PEREZ, J.
As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three working days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment.[27]
	GR No. 177100 2010-02-22	BANDILA SHIPPING v. MARCOS C. ABALOS ABAD, J.
The Court recognized in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[19] the significance of the adoption by the Department of Labor and Employment of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract as a condition for deploying Filipino seafarers working on foreign ocean-going vessels. When the foreign shipping company signs that contract, there is assurance that it voluntarily subjects itself to Philippine laws and jurisdiction. If the NLRC orders the payment of benefits not found in that contract, the particular seaman might be favored but the credibility of our standard employment contract will suffer. Foreign shipping companies might regard it as non-binding to the detriment of other seamen.