Seafarer Disability Claims: Proving Work-Related Illness Under the POEA Contract

The Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Destriza v. Fair Shipping Corporation (G.R. No. 203539) serves as an important reminder for seafarers and their families: a diagnosis made while on board a vessel does not automatically entitle a seafarer to disability compensation. The case clarifies the burden of proof required under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the consequences of failing to follow its dispute-resolution procedures.

The Case: A Cook's Claim for Disability Benefits

Florencio Destriza was a cook deployed by Fair Shipping Corporation for its foreign principal, Boseline S.A. In 2003, during his third consecutive contract aboard M/V Cygnus, he experienced abdominal pain, fever, and jaundice. He was diagnosed with biliary duct stone and suspected pancreatitis, then medically repatriated to the Philippines.

The company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, declared Destriza fit to return to work after treatment. However, Destriza sought a second opinion from his own doctor, who concluded he was "unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity." Destriza filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board.

The Issue: When Is an Illness Compensable?

The central question was whether Destriza's illness—Chronic Calculus Cholecystitis, or gallbladder inflammation caused by gallstones—was compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators awarded him US$20,000.00, reasoning that his illness "became apparent" while he was on board. The Court of Appeals deleted this award for lack of legal basis, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

The Ruling: Work-Relatedness Must Be Proven

The Supreme Court held that under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, an illness must be work-related and incurred during the term of the contract to be compensable. The Court explained that while illnesses not listed as occupational diseases under the contract may be presumed work-related, this presumption does not mean an automatic grant of benefits.

The Court emphasized that the seafarer still bears the burden of establishing, through substantial evidence, that the illness is work-related or work-aggravated. In this case, Destriza's claims—that the hot temperature and meat-heavy diet on board caused his gallstones—were mere general averments. The Court quoted Status Maritime Corporation v. Spouses Delalamon: "Bare allegations do not suffice to discharge the required quantum of proof of compensability. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions."

The Third-Doctor Rule: A Costly Omission

The Court also highlighted a critical procedural misstep. When the company-designated physician and the seafarer's personal doctor disagree on fitness to work, the POEA contract requires the parties to jointly appoint a third doctor whose opinion is final and binding. Destriza failed to resort to this process. Consequently, the company physician's declaration that he was fit to work prevailed.

Because the award was deleted, Destriza was ordered to return the P902,440.00 that Fair Shipping Corporation had conditionally paid him while the appeal was pending.

Practical Takeaways

• A diagnosis on board is not enough. A seafarer must prove, through substantial evidence, that the illness was contracted due to work-related risks or aggravated by working conditions.
• The presumption of work-relatedness is not a free pass. Illnesses not listed as occupational diseases may be presumed work-related, but the seafarer must still corroborate the claim with credible evidence.
• Follow the third-doctor rule. If the company physician and the seafarer's doctor disagree, the seafarer must request a joint third-doctor examination. Failure to do so means the company physician's assessment prevails.
• Keep documentation. Medical records, treatment histories, and evidence of working conditions are essential to substantiate a disability claim.
• Understand the consequences. If an award is reversed on appeal, the seafarer may be required to return any conditional payments received.

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