GR 217345; (July, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217345, July 12, 2017
WILMER O. DE ANDRES, Petitioner, vs. DIAMOND H MARINE SERVICES & SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., WU CHUN HUA and RUBEN J. TURINGAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Wilmer O. De Andres was hired by respondent agency Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc. for its Taiwanese principal. On February 27, 2009, while working on the fishing vessel, he was thrown overboard by big waves, with his left leg entangled in fishing nets, resulting in an open fracture of his tibia and fibula. He underwent multiple surgeries in Taiwan. He repeatedly requested repatriation but was only sent home on February 5, 2010, nearly a year after the accident, allegedly due to contract expiration. Before repatriation, he was made to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for NT$40,000 and a plane ticket, in exchange for not filing any complaint. Upon arrival, the company’s operations manager told him to find a lawyer. He filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, among others.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits and whether the MOA he signed is valid and constitutes a bar to his claim.
RULING
Yes, petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, and the MOA is invalid. The Court ruled that the injury was work-related, having occurred during the performance of his duties. The medical assessment by his physician of choice, which found him unfit for sea duties due to his condition, was deemed credible as it remained uncontested by the company-designated doctor. The failure of the employer to contest this assessment within the prescribed period renders the seafarer’s disability total and permanent.
Regarding the MOA, the Court declared it void for being contrary to public policy and amounting to economic coercion. The agreement, signed under the circumstance that he would not be repatriated unless he signed, effectively waived his right to claim benefits mandated by law. A waiver of monetary benefits in labor cases must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms, with the employee fully aware of his rights. The paltry sum of NT$40,000 (approximately ₱57,000) is grossly disproportionate to the disability benefits due under the POEA Standard Contract, which provides for a maximum of US$60,000 for such injuries. The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims that exploit workers’ necessity. Thus, the MOA does not bar his claim. The NLRC and CA decisions were reversed, and the Labor Arbiter’s award of disability benefits was reinstated.