Protecting Seafarers: Employers Must Uphold Medical Obligations and Timely Pay Sickness Allowances

---

The Supreme Court recently reminded manning agencies and their principals that they cannot have it both ways. In Cariño v. Maine Marine Phils., Inc. (G.R. No. 231111, October 17, 2018), the Court ruled that an employer cannot fault a medically repatriated seafarer for missing a doctor's appointment when the employer itself failed to pay the seafarer's sickness allowance and to approve continued medical treatment. The ruling protects seafarers from being placed in an impossible position: unable to afford travel for treatment because their wages were withheld, then accused of abandoning that treatment.

The Facts of the Case

Christian Albert Cariño was hired as a deck boy aboard M/V Raga with a basic monthly salary of US$235.00. In August 2013, he slipped into a manhole while cleaning the deck and suffered multiple fractures on his right fibula and ankle. He underwent emergency surgery abroad and was repatriated for medical reasons.

After returning to the Philippines, Cariño reported to the company-designated physician. However, when his next appointment came, he did not appear. The employer claimed he abandoned his treatment. Cariño, on the other hand, presented text messages and Facebook conversations showing he repeatedly asked the agency's personnel when his treatment would be approved and when his sickness allowance would be released. The agency kept replying that approval was still pending. He even wrote a formal letter explaining he could not afford to travel from La Union to Manila without his sickness allowance.

The Issue

The central question was whether Cariño's failure to appear for his September 17, 2013 check-up amounted to abandonment of treatment, thereby forfeiting his right to disability benefits.

The Ruling: No Abandonment, Employer Breached Its Duties

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the NLRC, siding with the Labor Arbiter. The Court held that Cariño did not abandon his treatment. His failure to attend the appointment was caused by the employer's own breaches: it had not paid his sickness allowance and had not approved the continuation of his medical treatment.

Under Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), the employer has three distinct liabilities when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury: (1) provide medical treatment at its cost, (2) pay sickness allowance equivalent to the seafarer's basic wage until he is declared fit or his disability is assessed, and (3) pay disability benefits if the seafarer is not declared fit.

The Court emphasized that the seafarer's duty to report for check-ups must be read together with the employer's duty to provide treatment and pay sickness allowance. Here, Cariño had no money for travel because his allowance was unpaid, and he had been told his treatment was not yet approved. Despite this, he consistently followed up and even wrote a formal demand letter.

Because the company-designated physician failed to issue a final disability assessment within 120 days without justifiable reason, Cariño's disability became permanent and total, following the rule in Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr. (765 Phil. 341 [2015]).

The CBA Could Not Be Ignored

The Court also rejected the argument that Cariño could not claim under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because he failed to present it on time. Citing Andaya v. NLRC, the Court held that technical rules of evidence do not bind labor tribunals. Documents submitted for the first time on appeal may be given evidentiary weight. Since Cariño's employment contract — which the employer itself submitted — stated he was covered by the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA, the employer could not escape liability on a technicality.

Damages for Callous Treatment

The Court increased the moral and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each, finding the employer's conduct "incredibly callous." The agency gave Cariño a run-around, ignored his pleas, failed to pay his sickness allowance, and then accused him of abandoning treatment. He was also awarded attorney's fees of 10% of the monetary awards and legal interest of 6% per annum from finality of the decision.

Practical Takeaways

• Employers must pay sickness allowance promptly. The sickness allowance replaces the seafarer's wage while he is unable to work. Delaying it is a breach of the POEA-SEC and may be the very reason a seafarer cannot attend medical appointments.
• Employers must approve and provide medical treatment without delay. A company-designated physician cannot simply wait for a seafarer to appear if the employer has not confirmed approval of treatment or reimbursement of expenses.
• A seafarer's missed appointment is not automatically abandonment. The circumstances matter. If the seafarer consistently followed up and the employer failed to respond, the seafarer cannot be faulted.
• The 120-day rule is strict. If the company-designated physician fails to issue a final assessment within 120 days without justifiable reason, the seafarer's disability is deemed permanent and total.
• Technicalities will not defeat a seafarer's claim. CBAs and other evidence submitted late may still be considered in labor proceedings, especially when the employment contract itself references the CBA.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.