By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
ROSELL R. ARGUILLES VS. WILHELMSEN SMITH BELL MANNING, INC., G.R. NO. 254586 (JULY 10, 2023): INJURY FROM A BASKETBALL GAME ONBOARD INTERNATIONAL VESSEL RENDERED COMPENSABLE UNDER THE SO-CALLED BUNKHOUSE DOCTRINE AND PERSONAL COMFORT DOCTRINE
On June 15, 2016, petitioner Rosell Arguilles entered a Contract of Employment with
Wilhelmsen Manning to serve as Ordinary Seaman on board the vessel M/V Toronto for a period of six
months. Petitioner Arguilles passed his medical examination and was declared as fit for sea duty.
Petitioner Arguilles was deployed and commenced duties on July 24, 2016. On December 26, 2016,
while he was playing basketball with his colleagues in their free time, petitioner suffered an injury in his
left uncle. The Injury/Illness Report prepared by M/V Toronto’s ship master described his injury as a
suspected torn Achilles tendon. A plaster cast was placed in his foot. He was medically repatriated on
January 18, 2017.
Upon his arrival, petitioner Arguilles was referred to Wilhelmsen Manning’s company-
designated physicians at Marine Medical Services. He underwent an initial evaluation on January 20,
- A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on his left ankle, and he was diagnosed to
have “High Grade Achilles Tendon Tear, Left”. Petitioner Arguilles was then referred by his manning
agency to Bonzel Healthcare Rehabilitation Center for physical therapy sessions visiting 49 times from
February 13, 2017 to June 23, 2017.
Alleging that respondent terminated his treatment on June 28, 2017 because his “work-related
injury was too severe to be resolved within 120 days”, petitioner consulted an independent physician,
Dr. Rogelio Catapang of Sta. Teresita General Hospital in Quezon City who rendered a Medical Report
that petitioner is already unfit for sea duty. Petitioner asked respondent for payment of disability
benefits but was denied. Hence, he filed a case before the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioner ruling that petitioner’s injury is
work-related under the so-called Bunkhouse Rule. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed
the ruling of the Labor Arbiter but modified the award by reducing the same from $90,000.00 to just
$9,405.00 explaining that his disability was neither permanent nor total. On motions for reconsideration
by both parties, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed and set aside its earlier ruling and
completely dismissed the case for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court
of Appeals. However, the appellate court dismissed his petition affirming the ruling of the NLRC, hence,
the filing of a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner argues that while he was off duty and while on leisure, he was supposedly on “On
Call” status and may be summoned by his superiors at any given time and regardless if he was sleeping,
eating, or playing basketball, their working environment was controlled by their employer who allowed
them to engage in activities like basketball during their off-duty hours, and that as such, the Bunkhouse
Rule is squarely applicable to his case.
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations
Commission and reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter rendering the injury incurred by petitioner
Arguilles as compensable based on the Bunkhouse Rule and Personal Comfort Rule. The Court cited the
provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement providing recreational facilities to seafarers in
accordance with ILO Recommendation No. 138 (1970). Paragraph 24, Section IV of ILO Recommendation
No. 138 (1970) provides for healthy recreation such as hobbies, gymnastics, games, or sports, both
ashore and onboard.
The Supreme Court held that it is apparent that a seafarer’s participation in recreational
activities such as sports and games is not an unsanctioned activity as respondents have characterized.
Rather, they are part and parcel of a seafarer’s life while traversing the Seven Seas, should his or her
vessel lead there. Accordingly, the fact that a seafarer suffered an injury while playing sports on board a
vessel, during his or her free time, should not be curtly dismissed and brushed aside as one that it not
related to that seafarer’s occupation.
For the first time, the Supreme Court embedded in our jurisprudence the so-called Bunkhouse
Rule by quoting its definition under Corpus Juris Secundum: “When the contract of employment
contemplates that the employee shall sleep, or have his meals, or do both on the premises of the
employer, the employee is considered to be performing services growing out of, and incidental to, or in
the course of, such employment during the time he is on the premises of the employer for such purposes
before or after the regular working hours.”
The Supreme Court also sustained the invocation by petitioner Arguilles of the so-called
Personal Comfort Doctrine which states that, “the course of employment is not considered broken by
certain acts relating to the personal comfort of the employee, as such acts are helpful to the employer in
that they aid in efficient performance by the employee. On the other hand, acts which are found to be
departures effecting a temporary abandonment of employment are not protected.”
Verily, breaks which allow employees to administer to their personal comfort better enable
them to perform their jobs and are therefore considered to be in furtherance of the employer’s
business. Although technically the employees are performing no services for their employer in the sense
that their actions do not contribute directly to the employer’s profits, compensation is justified on the
rationale that the employer receives indirect benefits in the form of better work from happy and rested
employees, and on the theory that such minor deviations do not take the employees out of their
employment.