Photo from Unsplash | Centre for Ageing Better
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
An employee shall be entitled to an income benefit of permanent partial disability if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
- He has been duly reported to the System;
- He sustains the permanent partial disability as a result of the injury or sickness; and,
- The System has been duly notified of the injury or sickness which caused his disability.
The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first month of such disability, but not longer than the designated number of months in the following schedule:
- Loss of hearing of one ear – 10 months;
- Loss of hearing of both ears – 50 months.
(Source: Amended Rules on Employee’s Compensation)
What are the Types of Disability Benefits?
At the outset, disability may be classified as either partial, total, temporary or permanent.
Permanent disability is defined as the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days (or 240 days, as the case may be), regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. Total disability, meanwhile, means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do. (Juan Esplago vs. Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238652, June 21, 2021)
Any employee who sustains an injury or contracts sickness resulting in temporary total disability shall, for each day of such a disability or fraction thereof, be paid by the System an income benefit equivalent to ninety percent of his average daily salary credit, subject to the following conditions: the daily income benefit shall not be less than Ten Pesos nor more than 200 pesos, nor paid for a continuous period longer than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the Rules, and the System shall be notified of the injury or sickness. The payment of such income benefit shall be in accordance with the regulations of the Commission. (Article 197, Labor Code of the Philippines)
Any employee who contracts sickness or sustains an injury resulting in his permanent total disability shall, for each month until his death, be paid by the System during such a disability, an amount equivalent to the monthly income benefit, plus ten percent thereof for each dependent child, but not exceeding five, beginning with the youngest and without substitution: Provided, That the monthly income benefit shall be the new amount of the monthly benefit for all covered pensioners. (Article 198, Labor Code of the Philippines)
Any employee who contracts sickness or sustains an injury resulting in permanent partial disability shall, for each month not exceeding the period designated herein, be paid by the System during such a disability an income benefit for permanent total disability. (Article 199, Labor Code of the Philippines)
When is the Loss of Hearing Compensable?
Whether or not hearing loss is eligible for compensation depends on various factors, such as the underlying cause and the applicable laws of the jurisdiction. If the hearing impairment is a direct result of the work environment (e.g., exposure to loud noises without adequate protection), it is likely covered under workers’ compensation.
On the other hand, if the hearing loss is not connected to the job or is already a pre-existing condition of the employee, the criteria for compensation may be different. Private disability insurance or government programs may be relevant in these cases.
Taking the case of Loadstar International Shipping, Inc., vs. The Heirs of the Late Enrique Calawigan, G.R. No. 187337, December 5, 2012.
On 4 July 2005, Calawigan filed against Loadstar International Shipping, Inc. (LISI) a complaint for medical reimbursement, sickness allowance, permanent disability benefits, compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Contending that his shipboard employment exposed him to stress, depression, chemical irritants, and rigors of the sea, Calawigan alleged that he suffered blurring of vision and a roaring sound in his ears while overhauling a piston in the vessel’s engine room sometime in March 2005. In view of his worsening condition which he initially attributed to overfatigue, Calawigan claimed that he requested a reliever and a medical checkup when the vessel docked at Ishinomaki, Japan.
On 16 May 2005, he was diagnosed by a Japanese doctor to be suffering from “Uveitis” and advised to disembark the vessel for medical treatment.
Upon his 5 June 2005 disembarkation, Calawigan maintained that he requested for a medical examination from LISI which simply referred his request to the Social Security System (SSS) as a sickness benefit claim. As a consequence, he was supposedly constrained to consult Dr. Luis Mendiola (Dr. Mendiola) at the Manila Hearing Aid Center (MHAC) on 27 June 2005 and to undergo an ultrasonography of his right eye at the St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) where he was diagnosed to be suffering from “Retinal Detachment w/ Vitreous Opacities, O.D.”
On the strength of the MHAC diagnosis that he was likewise suffering “moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss” in the right ear, Calawigan was issued a Medical Certificate dated 5 July 2005 by Dr. Mendiola who assessed his disability as Grade 3 under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC). Ultimately, Calawigan asserted that LISI unjustifiably turned a deaf ear to his demands for payment of the disability and medical benefits due him.
The issue of the case is whether Calawigan is entitled to permanent disability compensation as his moderate hearing loss is not considered an occupational disease with a grade three (3) impediment pursuant to Section 32 of the standard terms and conditions governing the employment of Filipino seafarers onboard ocean-going vessels.
In this case, the Court finds that Calawigan failed to establish that he was repatriated for medical reasons. The NLRC ruled that said seafarer’s monetary claims were correctly dismissed for lack of showing that his moderate hearing loss was attributable to his working conditions and that he submitted himself for a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three days from repatriation.
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied under the POEA-SEC: (1) the seafarer’s work must involve the risks described in the contract; (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.
Deafness is listed as an occupational disease for work in “any industrial operation having excessive noise particularly in the higher frequencies” or “any process carried on in compressed or rarified air.”
Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC assigns the following disability grades for ear injuries or ailments, viz.:
SECTION 32. SCHEDULE OF DISABILITY OR IMPEDIMENT FOR INJURIES SUFFERED AND DISEASES INCLUDING OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES OR ILLNESS CONTRACTED.
x x x x
EARS
- For the complete loss of the sense of hearing on both ears…Gr. 3
- Loss of two (2) external ears…………… Gr. 8
- Complete loss of the sense of hearing in one ear……Gr. 11
- Loss of one external ear……………………………….. Gr. 12
- Loss of one half (1/2) of an external ear…………………. Gr. 14
Considering that Calawigan was only diagnosed to be suffering from “moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss,” LISI correctly argues that the CA erred in giving credence to Dr. Mendiola’s assessment of a Grade 3 disability rating which corresponds to complete loss of hearing on both ears. Absent a finding that the “ossicular disarticulation” detected on Calawigan’s right ear amounts to a complete loss of the sense of hearing in one ear, it would also appear that said seafarer is not even entitled to compensation for a Grade 11 disability rating.
Granted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims therefor, compensation and disability benefits under the POEA-SEC cannot be awarded to ailment or injuries not falling within its purview.
The above case emphasized the complexities surrounding compensation for hearing loss, depending on various factors including its cause and the adherence to governing rules. Here, the court ruled in favor of the employer, emphasizing that for an occupational disease and resulting disability to be compensable, specific conditions and requisites must be met. As such, the eligibility for compensation in cases of hearing loss is determined by a careful examination of the circumstances and adherence to the conditions established under POEA-SEC.
Read also: When is occupational disease and the resulting disability or death compensable?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.