PLAI

← 2026 · Labor Law & Social Legislation

Bon Voyage Shipmanagement Company (BVSC) hired Bruno as an able seaman on board the vessel M/V Caeli. He boarded the vessel on June 16, 2024. While…

2026 Bar Exam · Labor Law & Social Legislation · Question 17 · Essay

The question

Bon Voyage Shipmanagement Company (BVSC) hired Bruno as an able seaman on board the vessel M/V Caeli. He boarded the vessel on June 16, 2024. While on duty, Bruno felt cramps followed by severe back pain. When the vessel docked in Panama, Bruno sought treatment and was diagnosed with a lumbar disc problem and was recommended for repatriation. On December 2, 2024, Bruno arrived in Manila and was immediately referred to the company-designated physician. The company-designated physician determined that Bruno required further medical treatment. On August 3, 2025, the company-designated physician issued a final disability rating of “Grade 8 disability — moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk.” With his condition far from improving, Bruno sought treatment from his personal physician, who concluded that the nature and extent of his injury rendered him permanently and totally unfit to work as a seafarer. Bruno thus sought the payment of total and permanent disability benefits from BVSC. When his demand went unheeded, he filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Bruno was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits due to the belated issuance of the company-designated physician’s final disability rating on August 3, 2025. Is the LA’s ruling correct? Explain.

Held

Yes, the Labor Arbiter’s ruling is correct under the rules in Salonga v. Solvang Philippines, G.R. No. 229451 (2021-02-10).

Explanation

The law requires that when a seafarer is repatriated due to injury or illness, the company-designated physician must issue a final and definitive medical assessment of the seafarer's disability within 120 days from the time the seafarer reports for medical treatment. If the physician fails to issue this assessment within 120 days without justifiable reason, the seafarer's disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law, entitling the seafarer to total and permanent disability benefits. However, if there is a sufficient justification—such as the need for further medical treatment or the seafarer's uncooperativeness—the period for diagnosis and treatment may be extended to 240 days. The employer bears the burden of proving that such justification exists. If the physician still fails to issue the final assessment within 240 days, the disability becomes permanent and total regardless of justification.

The assessment must be final and definitive to properly reflect the seafarer's condition and capacity to work. The failure to issue a timely and final assessment within the prescribed period results in the disability being considered permanent and total by law.

Application to the facts

Bruno reported for medical treatment immediately upon repatriation on December 2, 2024. The company-designated physician determined that Bruno required further medical treatment, which may justify extending the assessment period to 240 days under the rules. However, the final disability rating was issued only on August 3, 2025, which is beyond the 240-day maximum period allowed from the time Bruno reported for treatment. The sources require the employer to prove sufficient justification for any extension, but regardless of justification, if the assessment is not issued within 240 days, the disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law.

Since the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definitive medical assessment within the 120-day period or even within the extended 240-day period, Bruno's disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law. This entitles him to total and permanent disability benefits despite the physician’s belated rating. The Labor Arbiter correctly applied this rule in awarding Bruno the benefits.

This is general legal information, not legal advice.