GR 179177; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179177 ; July 23, 2009
CARLOS N. NISDA, Petitioner, vs. SEA SERVE MARITIME AGENCY and KHALIFA A. ALGOSAIBI DIVING AND MARINE SERVICES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos N. Nisda was hired by respondent Khalifa A. Algosaibi Diving and Marine Services (ADAMS) through its manning agent, Nobel Ship Services, Inc., under a POEA-approved Standard Employment Contract (SEC) dated August 7, 2001, as Tugboat Master for six months. On August 30, 2001, while already on board, Nisda and an ADAMS representative executed a second contract extending the duration to 448 days. This second contract was not POEA-approved and contained a superseding clause. Nisda completed his initial contract, took a vacation, and was redeployed. In May 2002, while on board, he complained of parascapular pain and paresthesia and was diagnosed with myositis. He was eventually repatriated on July 17, 2002.
Upon repatriation, Nisda claimed he reported to the agency but was told to return a week later for a medical examination. Instead, he went home to Iloilo the next day, where he experienced breathing difficulties and chest pains. He consulted a private physician who diagnosed him with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. He later filed a complaint for disability benefits, arguing his illness was work-related and occurred during the term of the second, unapproved contract.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Nisda is entitled to disability benefits for an illness allegedly suffered during the term of an employment contract that was not approved by the POEA.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the denial of disability benefits. The legal logic rests on the primacy and mandatory nature of the POEA-SEC. The Court ruled that the second, unapproved contract executed on board is void for violating public policy. Philippine labor laws and the POEA rules require overseas employment contracts for seafarers to be processed and approved by the POEA to ensure compliance with standard protective provisions. A contract not submitted for approval does not bind the parties and cannot extend the original POEA-approved contract’s duration or alter its terms.
Consequently, Nisda’s employment was governed solely by the original POEA-SEC, which had a six-month term ending in February 2002. His claimed illness manifested in May 2002, which was after the expiration of this valid contract. Since no approved contract covered him at the time of his illness, his claim for disability benefits under the POEA-SEC had no legal basis. The Court emphasized that the POEA-SEC is a public policy measure designed for the protection of Filipino seafarers, and any private agreement that circumvents its approval process is unenforceable.