Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs John Melchor Laurente et al

written by Howard

G.R. No. 158883 – 521 Phil. 576 – 487 SCRA 452 – Labor Law – Social Legislation – Overseas Employment; Repatriation – Permanent Disability – POEA Contract

In 1993, John Melchor Laurente was hired as an engineer by Philippine Transmarine Carriers for its principal Lucky Ocean Marine Corporation. Laurente was assigned to work aboard the foreign ship Standard Star. Laurente’s contract was for one year from June 1993 to June 1994.

In October 1993, while he was aboard the foreign ship, he experienced nausea and dizziness. He then requested to be repatriated. In the Philippines, he was required to see the company doctor and there it was discovered that he has chronic renal failure which is classified as a Grade 1 disability. On March 20, 1994, Laurente was declared totally disabled.

Meanwhile, earlier that month or on March 1, 1994, the POEA Standard Employment Contract changed the compensation amount of Grade I disabilities from 120% of $11k to 120% of $50k. Under this basis, Laurente now claims the higher compensation.

Philippine Transmarine denied Laurente’s claim on two grounds: a.) Laurente was deemed terminated when he asked for repatriation in October 1993, b.) the amendment in the POEA contract is not applicable to Laurente because his disability occurred before the amendment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine Transmarine’s claims are tenable.

HELD: No. Laurente was not deemed terminated when he requested to be repatriated in October 1993. In fact, after repatriation, Philippine Transmarine still considered Laurente as an employee as it ordered him to see the company doctor. Further, it was only in March 1994 that Laurente was declared as totally disabled for work hence, he is still considered as an employee prior to that date.

The amendment applies to Laurente. It is true that the amended contract is not clear whether or not such amendment or such increase is applicable to contracts or obligations that accrue prior to such amendment. Since the law is not clear then an interpretation which is favorable to labor must be adopted. This is more so because when the amendment was made: a.) Laurente’s contract was still subsisting, and b.) he was not yet declared totally disabled. Therefore, he (actually his heirs because he is already dead at that time) can claim the higher compensation as provided for in the amended POEA contract.

Read full text.