Wallem Maritime Services v.

Tanawan
Doctrine: A seafarer, to be entitled to disability benefits, must prove that the injury
was suffered during the term of the employment, and must submit himself to the
company-designated physician for evaluation within three days from his
repatriation.
Facts:
Petitioner Wallem Maritime Services, then acting as local agent of Scandic
Ship Management, engaged Ernesto C. Tanawan as dozer driver assigned to the
vessel, M/V Eastern Falcon, for a period of 12 months. On November 22, 1997, while
Tanawan was assisting two co-workers in lifting a steel plate aboard the vessel, a
corner of the steel plate touched the floor of the deck, causing the sling to slide and
the steel plate to hit his left foot. He was brought to a hospital in Malaysia where his
left foot was placed in a cast. His x-ray showed he had suffered multiple left toes
fracture. Following Tanawans repatriation, his designated physician, Dr. Robert D.
Lim, conducted the evaluation and treatment of his foot injury at Metropolitan
Hospital where he was advised to continue with his immobilization to allow healing.
On April 7, 1998, Tanawan underwent bone grafting and was discharged on the next
day. Subsequently, Dr. Lim reported that Tanawan was already asymptomatic and
pronounced him fit to work. It is noted that during this period, Tanawan was paid
sickness allowances equivalent to his monthly salary. On March 31, 1988, while
Tanawan was still under treatment by Dr. Lim, he also sought the services of Dr.
Rimando Saguin to assess the extent of his disability due to the same injury. Dr.
Saguin categorized the foot injury as Grade 12 based on the POEA Schedule of
Disability.
On August 25, 1998, due to the worsening condition of his right eye, Tanawan
also went to the clinic of Dr. Hernando D. Bunuan for a disability evaluation of an
eye injury that he had supposedly sustained while on board the vessel. Tanawan
narrated that on October 5, 1997, the Chief Engineer directed him to spray-paint the
loader of the vessel; that as he was opening a can of thinner, some of the thinner
accidentally splashed into his right eye; that he was rushed to the Office of the
Chief Mate for emergency treatment and that the ship doctor examined him five
days later, and told him that there was nothing to worry about and that he could
continue working. Dr. Bunuan categorized his disability as Grade 7 as he was
diagnosed with a retinal detachment with vitreous hemorrhage on the right eye for
which surgical repair was needed.
On November 26, 1998, Tanawan filed in the NLRC a complaint for disability
benefits for the foot and eye injuries, sickness allowance, damages and attorneys
fees against the petitioner and its foreign principal. In its answer, the petitioner
denied Tanawans claim for disability benefits for his foot injury, averring that he

was already fit to work based on Dr. Lims certification; that he did not sustain the
alleged eye injury while on board the vessel because no such injury was reported
pursuant to the POEA Standard Employment Contract; that the claim for sickness
allowance was already paid when he underwent treatment.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Tanawans favor finding sufficient evidence to
support Tanawans claim for disability benefits. On appeal, NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiters decision and dismissed Tanawans complaint for lack of merit. The CA
again reversed NLRCs decision finding that what was being compensated in
disability compensation was not the foot injury but the incapacity to work and that
Tanawans claim for the eye injury was warranted because the injury occurred
during the term of the employment contract.
Issues:
1. Whether the POEA standard employment contract (POEA SEC) is the law
between the seaman and the manning agent YES
2. Whether Tanawan can claim disability benefits for his foot injury despite being
declared fit by the Company physician - YES
3. Whether a seaman can claim disability benefits after he failed to report his
alleged injury within the three-day reglementary period as required by law - NO
Held/Ratio:
1. YES. The employment of seafarers, and its incidents, including claims for death
benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or
rehired. Such have the force of law between the parties as long as their stipulations
are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy. While the seafarers and
their employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the POEA rules and
regulations require that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard terms and
conditions of the seafarers employment in foreign ocean-going vessels, be
integrated in every seafarers contract.
It is clear from the POEA SEC which was in effect at the time of Tanawans
employment that the one tasked to determine whether the seafarer suffers from
any disability or is fit to work is the company-designated physician. As such, the
seafarer must submit himself to the company-designated physician for a postemployment medical examination within three days from his repatriation. But the
assessment of the company-designated physician is not final, binding or conclusive
on the seafarer, the labor tribunals, or the courts. The seafarer may request a
second opinion and consult a physician of his choice regarding his ailment or injury,

and the medical report issued by the physician of his choice shall also be evaluated
on its inherent merit by the labor tribunal and the court.
2. YES. Tanawan submitted himself to Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician, for a
medical examination within the 3-day reglementary period from his repatriation.
The said examination conducted focused on Tanawans foot injury, the cause of his
repatriation and made no mention of an eye injury. Dr. Lim treated Tanawan for the
foot injury from December 1, 1997 until May 21, 1998, when Dr. Lim declared him fit
to work. Within that period (172 days), Tanawan was unable to perform his job, an
indication of a permanent disability1. That the company-designated physician did
not render any finding of disability is of no consequence. Disability should be
understood more on the loss of earning capacity rather than on the
medical significance of the disability. Even in the absence of an official
finding by the company-designated physician to the effect that the
seafarer suffers a disability and is unfit for sea duty, the seafarer may still
be declared to be suffering from a permanent disability if he is unable to
work for more than 120 days. What clearly determines the seafarers
entitlement to permanent disability benefits is his inability to work for more than
120 days. Although the company-designated physician already declared the
seafarer fit to work, the seafarers disability is still considered permanent and total if
such declaration is made belatedly (that is, more than 120 days after repatriation).
After the lapse of the 120-day period from his repatriation, Tanawan consulted Dr.
Saguin, a private physician, for the purpose of having an evaluation of the degree of
his disability. At that time, he was due to undergo bone grafting as Dr. Lim
recommended. Dr. Saguins finding that Tanawan had a Grade 12 disability was,
therefore, explicable and plausible.
3. No. (see doctrine)
Tanawans claim for disability benefits due to the eye injury was already barred by
his failure to report the injury and to have his eye examined by a companydesignated physician. The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury
within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to
determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness
or injury beyond the period may prove difficult.
Tanawan did not report the eye injury either to the Wallem Maritime or to Dr. Lim
while he was undergoing treatment for the foot injury. He did not even offer any
explanation as to why he had his eye examined only on August 25, 1998, or after
almost nine months from his repatriation.
1 Under the law, there is permanent disability if a worker is unable to perform his job for more than
120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.

Under the 1996 POEA SEC, it was enough to show that the injury or illness was
sustained during the term of the contract. The Court has declared that the
unqualified phrase "during the term" found in Section 20(B) thereof covered all
injuries or illnesses occurring during the lifetime of the contract. It is the oftrepeated rule, however, that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided
by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence. As such,
Tanawan must present concrete proof showing that he acquired or contracted the
injury or illness that resulted to his disability during the term of his employment
contract. Proof of this circumstance was particularly crucial in view of his nonreporting of the injury to the petitioner. Yet, he did not present any proof of having
sustained the eye injury during the term of his contract. All that he submitted was
his bare allegation that his eye had been splashed with some thinner while he was
on board the vessel. He also did not adduce any proof demonstrating that the
splashing of thinner could have caused the retinal detachment with vitreous
hemorrhage. At the very least, he should have adduced proof that would tie the
accident to the eye injury. We note at this juncture that even the certification by Dr.
Bunuan provided no information on the possible cause of the eye injury.
Consequently, the claim for disability benefit for the eye injury is denied in view of
Tanawans non-reporting of the injury to the petitioner and of his failure to prove
that the injury was sustained during the term of his employment.