There are about eight hundred thousand Filipino seamen, both marine officers and crew members, who are aboard thousands of vessels across the seven oceans all over the world. The Filipino seafarers are the preferred ocean-going personnel by almost all the manning agencies and their principal shipowners in Europe, in North and South America, in Oceania, and here in Asia. Our countrymen are, by nature, people of the sea. Our country is an archipelago and the Philippines is really a body of water sprinkled with islands. Thus, our people, from birth to death, are familiar with the nuances of the seas.
Our seaborne OFWs are the highest paid Filipino migrant workers, especially the ship Captains, First Mates, Chief Engineers and subordinate officers. When you go and visit the homes of these seafarers, they are obviously the better-off among our OFWs. However, the records show that many of them are involved in various labor disputes which include claims for disability and death benefits. Others involve illegal dismissals, unpaid money claims and related labor disputes. There are even Filipino seafarers who had been kidnapped by pirates and ocean robbers and terrorists.
In the case of A. Unica versus ANSCOR SWIRE SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ( GR 184318. 12 Feb 2014 ), the Supreme Court ruled that a seaman is a contractual employee and there is no illegal dismissal when his contract with the ship company has already expired. In this case, Unica's nine-month contract was set to expire on 25 October 2000. However, on that date of contract expiration, the vessel was still at sea. Unica was able to come home only on 14 November 2000, or 20 days after the expiration of his contract. It was Unica's theory that when he was allowed to stay for 20 more days, there was an implied extension of his contract.
Based on such theory of implied extension, Unica alleged that when he was not allowed to board the vessel again, it constituted a case of illegal dismissal. Unica filed a case of illegal dismissal, which the Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Unica, The NLRC affirmed the Arbiter's decision. The Court of Appeals however reversed said ruling and held that there was simply an expiration of contract, and no dismissal, much less illegal. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals. The Court stressed that Unica could not have been allowed to disembark on the expiration of his contract because at that time, the ship was in the middle of the ocean.
In the case of M. K. Ayungo versus BEAMKO SHIP MANAGMENT CORP. et al ( GR 203161, 26 Feb 2014 ), the Labor Arbiter awarded the Chief Engineer the total disability benefits for diabetes mellitus and hypertension in the total amount of US dollars 66,000.00 plus moral and exemplary damages of Php Two Hundred Thousand. This was affirmed by the NLRC but the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court reversed the decision ending to zero award to Ayungo. The Court held that claimant failed to submit substantial evidence indicating a causal relationship between his work and the nature of his ailment.
The Supreme Court held that a seaman's disability, to be compensable, the seafarer must establish that there exists a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the seaman and his work. And that linkage must lead a rational mind to conclude that his work might have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation might have been caused of any pre-existing condition he might have had. It would appear then, that in these two cases, the seafarers both lost their respective cases. Nonetheless, there are other cases where labor won and were awarded millions in awards for disability or back-wages and separation pay. In the next columns, we shall tackle the other cases.