𝗣𝗶𝗻𝗼𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝘆. 𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗼

A seafarer with a heart illness is considered a “walking time bomb ready to explode towards the end of his employment days.”

Thus declared the Supreme Court in the case of Leoncio v. MST Marine Services Phils. (GR. No. 230357, December 06, 2017) involving a seafarer who was medically repatriated due to coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypertensive cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that CVD, CAD, and other heart ailments of seafarers are work-related and, thus, compensable.

Seafarers have a higher rate of mortality, injuries, and illnesses than their counterparts ashore due to their particularly risky working conditions.

Seafarers have to brave storms, typhoons and high waves during the vessel’s journey plus the sudden change of climate and temperature as the vessel crosses territories.
Heart ailments of seafarers can be triggered or aggravated by their working conditions aboard the vessel as they can be subjected to physical and mental stress and strain.

Under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, CVD events that are considered as occupational illness include heart attack, chest pain (angina), heart failure or sudden death.

Other common CVDs include coronary heart diseases/ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular accident or stroke, and hypertension or elevated blood pressure.

A seafarer with heart illness may claim compensation if the following conditions are met: (a) when the heart disease was aggravated by reasons of the nature of the seafarer’s work, (b) the severity of the strain of the work may be sufficient and followed within 24 hours by clinical signs of cardiac insult, and (c) signs and symptoms of cardiac injury appeared during his work and the same persisted.

In most cases, the employer denies its liability for disability compensation by arguing that the seafarer failed to prove the causal connection between his heart diseases and work aboard the vessel. They usually attribute that his medical condition to poor lifestyle choices and health habits and was not indicative of work-relatedness.
In the Leoncio case, the Court noted that the seafarer worked with the company for almost two decades and later as a Chief Cook.

The Court stressed that “it is more than reasonable to conclude that the risks present in his work environment precipitated the onset of the acute exacerbation of his heart condition. It is likewise a matter of judicial notice that seafarers are exposed to varying temperatures and harsh weather conditions as the ship crossed ocean boundaries.
Worse, they are constantly plagued by homesickness and worry for being physically separated from their families for the entire duration of their contracts. Undoubtedly, this bears a great degree of emotional strain while making an effort to perform their jobs well.”

In granting disability benefits, the Supreme Court acknowledged that seafarers working for companies for long period of time is normally saddled with heavy responsibilities relative to navigation of the vessel, ship safety and management of emergencies. (Magsaysay Mitsui vs. Bengson, G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014)

One’s responsibilities may cause heavy burdens on a seafarer’s shoulders all these years, and certainly may have contributed to the development of his illness. Any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally result in wear and tear of the human body.
Notably, an overseas worker, having to ward off homesickness by reason of being physically separated from his family for the entire duration of his contract, bears a great degree of emotional strain while making an effort to perform his work well. The strain is even greater in the case of a seafarer who is constantly subjected to the perils of the sea while at work abroad and away from his family. (Fil-Pride Shipping v. Balasta G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014)

A seafarer normally spends much of his productive years with the company under several employment contracts that were continuously renewed. His years of service certainly will take a toll on his body, and he could not have contracted his illness elsewhere except while working for the company.

In Paringit vs. Global Gateway Crewing (G.R. No. 217123, March 28, 2019) , the Court awarded disability benefits as it attributed to the seafarer’s diet the heart diseases he suffered. The fats and chemicals in frozen and preserved meats congested his arteries.
Companies will no longer hire a seafarer with medical conditions, especially the high risk of having heart failure or stoke in the future.

From the business point of view, re-employment will be risky since the harsh working environment might only aggravate his fragile condition and in the end expose the company to more serious insurance liabilities.

(𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑦. 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑠 𝑅. 𝐺𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑜 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑠’ 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑜 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑧 𝐵𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑔 𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠. 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑒-𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜@𝑠𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑧.𝑐𝑜𝑚, 𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 09088665786.)