Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado

“Darroca, Jr. vs. Century Maritime Agencies, et al.”,

G.R. No. 234392 (10 November 2021)

When Does a Psychological Disorder of a Seafarer Become Compensable Disability?

This case stems from a case filed by Efraim Daut Darroca, Jr. against Century Maritime Agencies, Inc. (“Cenmar”) and/or Damina Shipping Corporation and/or Johanna B. Durana. Darroca has been a seafarer with Cenmar as his agency since 10 May 1998. On 12 August 2012, Darroca was rehired by Cenmar for principal, Damina Shipping Corporation, and underwent a rigid physical and medical examination where he was declared fit for sea duty. Darroca boarded MT Dynasty. However, after one month of working, Darroca had trouble in sleeping and extreme exhaustion. He also began to see unusual visions and hear voices. By October 2012, he experienced dizziness due to smell of the fumes of chemicals, loss appetite and weakness.

Because of his condition, Darroca requested to have a consultation about his condition with a doctor. On 15 October 2012, while Darroca was in the port of Houston, USA, he consulted with Dr. Darell Griffin. He was diagnosed with “major depression and psychomotor retardation” and was declared unfit for sea duty and repatriated to the Philippines for further treatment. Upon arrival, Darroca was referred to a company-designated physician who examined him and found his condition not to be work-related or work-aggravated since there were no elicited conflicts in his associations within his work environment. The company-designated physician continued to attend to his medical care of Darroca until the latter abandoned his medical treatment sometime in November 2012. 

On 19 June 2013, Darroca submitted himself once again for evaluation by the company-designated physician. He informed the physician that he had consultations with his own personal specialist in the province but had not gone through counselling. On 23 July 2014, due to his continued incapacity to work, Darroca consulted Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag, a clinical psychologist. After examination, Darroca was diagnosed to be suffering from “major depression with psychotic features” and was recommended to undergo continuous psychological and psychiatric intervention. 

On 29 March 2014, Darroca filed a complaint. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his case stating that his illness is not work-related considering that there was no causal connection between his illness and his work and there were no elicited conflicts in his associations within his work environment. The Labor Arbiter, however, awarded Darroca a financial assistance of Php50,000.00 owing to his 14 years of service to Cenmar. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and held that it is not sufficient that Darroca’s illness rendered him permanently or partially disabled; but it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the illness he suffered and the work for which he had been contracted. The NLRC also added that Darroca’s mental illness was not compensable since it did not result from a traumatic injury to the head as required by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. On a Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals denied the same and affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. 

On Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Supreme Court denied the same and upheld the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that for disability to be compensable under the above POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1 ) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. It is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. The POEA-SEC defines work-related illness as “any sickness because of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with conditions set therein satisfied. The Court held that for illness not mentioned under Section 32, the POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption in favor of the seafarer that these illnesses are work-related. The employer may present evidence to rebut the said presumption. That pertains, however, only to the matter of “work-relatedness”. For an occupational disease resulting to disability or death to be compensable, all the following conditions must be satisfied: (1) the seafarer’s work must involve the risks described herein; 2) the disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks; 3) the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and 4) there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. 

The Court ruled that Darroca failed to sufficiently show by substantial evidence compliance with the conditions of compensability. The Court held:

“In the case at bar, Darroca failed to sufficiently establish that his illness is work-related and cornpensable. It is undisputed that before repatriation, he was diagnosed to be suffering from major depression and psychomotor retardation. Upon consultation with his physician of choice back in the Philippines, Darroca was also diagnosed to be suffering from major depression with psychotic features. To prove his illness as work-related, it is necessary for evidence to show his actual duties, the nature of his illness, and other factors that may lead to the conclusion that his work conditions brought about or at the very least, increased the risk of contracting his complained illness. However, aside from his bare statement that he worked as an able seaman on board MT Dynasty, records are bereft of any showing what his specific duties were. Moreover, his general assertion of experiencing “dizziness” when he smells the fumes of chemicals he was as working on” is insufficient to conclude that his work brought about or increased the risk of his depression. Notably, even the medical evaluation by his own doctor did not mention anything about his duties as a seafarer, or the risks involved thereto.

Century was also able to successfully overturn the legal presumption that Darroca’s illness is work-related. It bears noting that the 20 June 2013 affidavit of Darroca stated that he was employed under fair working conditions and without any maltreatment by the officers or crew of the ship. Additionally, he declared that he did not suffer any injury or any traumatic experiences onboard causing his inability to sleep. Absent any mention of Darroca’s duties and the risks involved in his work, it cannot be reasonably concluded that it caused or aggravated his depression.”

In the next article, we shall discuss at least two (2) cases wherein even if there was no head trauma to the seafarer, which resulted to death or disability, the Supreme Court still made an award as a compensable disease.