gaboogle.com

by Atty. Gabriel Ablola đŸ‡”đŸ‡­

Category: Labor Law

  • Is My Brother’s Death at Sea Compensable if the Employer Claims Suicide?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! I hope you can shed some light on a very difficult situation my family is facing. My brother, Mateo Navarro, was working as an engine cadet on an international cargo vessel under a 10-month contract. We were devastated to learn that he died last month while his ship was docked in Singapore. The company informed us that he reportedly fell overboard late at night and drowned. They retrieved his body several hours later.

    Mateo was only 25 and the main provider for his wife and young son. He seemed okay before he left, although he did mention feeling stressed about the long separation and the pressure of the job. He passed his pre-employment medical exam with flying colors. Now, the manning agency here in Manila is refusing to pay the death benefits stated in his POEA contract. They sent us a copy of the ship captain’s report which concluded that Mateo intentionally jumped off the vessel. They claim this means his death is not compensable.

    We are shocked and heartbroken. While Mateo might have been stressed, we never thought he was suicidal. We don’t have any proof of mental illness, just our feeling that he wouldn’t do such a thing deliberately. Is the company correct? Is it enough for them to just say it was a willful act based on the captain’s report? What are our rights, especially for his wife and child? We feel lost and don’t know where to turn. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you for your time,

    Julian Navarro

    Dear Julian,

    Thank you for reaching out. I understand this is an incredibly painful and confusing time for you and your family. Losing Mateo under such circumstances, compounded by the company’s refusal to pay benefits, must be overwhelming. Please accept my deepest condolences.

    Generally, the death of a seafarer during the term of their employment contract makes the employer liable for death compensation benefits to the heirs. However, there is a significant exception if the death results from a willful act attributable to the seafarer, such as suicide. The critical point here is who needs to prove what. Let’s delve into the specifics of how Philippine labor law and the standard employment contract address these situations.

    Navigating Seafarer Death Benefit Claims When Willful Acts Are Alleged

    The primary framework governing the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels is the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This contract outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer, including provisions for compensation in case of death.

    As a starting point, the law generally favors the seafarer and their beneficiaries. The rule establishes a presumption of liability on the part of the employer when a seafarer dies during the contract period.

    “The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits.”

    This means that, initially, the burden is not on your family to prove that Mateo’s death was work-related or accidental. His death occurred while his contract was active, which triggers the employer’s potential liability under the POEA-SEC.

    However, this general rule is not absolute. The POEA-SEC itself provides a specific exception that employers often invoke in situations like the one you described. This exception relates to deaths resulting from the seafarer’s own deliberate actions.

    “No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death resulting from a willful act on his own life by the seaman, provided, however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to him.”

    This provision is crucial. It explicitly states that if a seafarer’s death is due to a willful act on his own life (like suicide), compensation is not payable. However, the clause adds a very important condition: the employer must prove that the death is directly attributable to the seaman’s willful act. This shifts the burden of proof squarely onto the employer (the manning agency and the foreign principal).

    Simply presenting a captain’s report stating it was suicide might not be sufficient on its own. The employer needs to establish, through substantial evidence, that Mateo’s death was indeed a deliberate act of taking his own life. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Labor tribunals evaluate the evidence presented by both parties.

    “Settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence
”

    You mentioned Mateo was stressed, but stress or homesickness does not automatically equate to a mental disorder that negates the ‘willfulness’ of an act. If you were to argue that Mateo was suffering from a mental condition that prevented him from forming the intent to end his life, the burden of proving that condition would likely fall on your family. Proving insanity or a state of mind requires more than just anecdotal accounts of stress.

    “Establishing the insanity
 requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the person claimed to be insane, or who has rational basis to conclude that a person was insane based on the witness’ own perception of the person, or who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.”

    Without such evidence (like medical records, psychiatric evaluations, or strong testimonies from those who observed specific, irrational behaviors indicating a lack of sound mind), countering the employer’s claim of a willful act becomes very challenging, especially if the employer presents evidence like eyewitness accounts or reports detailing circumstances strongly suggesting suicide.

    The employer must present concrete proof linking the death directly to Mateo’s deliberate act. If they fail to meet this burden of proof with substantial evidence, the general rule of compensability for death during employment should prevail, and Mateo’s beneficiaries would be entitled to the death benefits under the POEA-SEC.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Gather All Documentation: Collect Mateo’s employment contract (POEA-SEC), allotment slips, any communication with him mentioning his state of mind (emails, letters, messages), the official incident report from the employer, the death certificate, and autopsy report if available.
    • Review the Employer’s Evidence: Carefully examine the ship captain’s report and any other evidence the employer provided. Look for inconsistencies, lack of detail, or reliance on assumptions rather than facts. Was there an investigation? Were there witnesses?
    • Assess Evidence of Mateo’s State of Mind: While general stress isn’t enough, think if there’s any concrete evidence suggesting Mateo was not of sound mind. Did he consult a doctor? Did he exhibit highly unusual behavior reported by crewmates or in communications home? Document anything potentially relevant.
    • Consult a Labor Lawyer Specializing in OFW Cases: This is crucial. An experienced lawyer can assess the strength of the employer’s evidence versus your position, advise on the merits of filing a claim, and represent your family before the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) or NCMB (National Conciliation and Mediation Board).
    • Understand the Burden of Proof: Remember, the employer must prove the death was a willful act. Your lawyer can help challenge their evidence and highlight any weaknesses in their claim.
    • File a Claim Promptly: There are prescriptive periods (deadlines) for filing claims for death benefits. Consult your lawyer immediately to ensure you file within the required timeframe, typically within three years from the date of death.
    • Consider Witness Testimonies: If possible, identify any crewmates who might be willing to provide statements about the incident or Mateo’s condition prior to his death. Their accounts could be valuable.
    • Prepare for Litigation: Claims involving alleged suicide can be contentious and may require formal legal proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and potentially appellate bodies.

    Navigating this process is challenging, especially while grieving. The employer has the burden to prove their defense of a willful act with substantial evidence. Your family has the right to contest their claim and seek the benefits Mateo worked hard for. Engaging a knowledgeable lawyer is your most important next step to effectively protect the rights of Mateo’s wife and child.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Forced into ‘Consultancy’ Near Retirement, Am I Still Entitled to Benefits?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! I hope this message finds you well. My name is Roberto Valdez, and I’ve been working for a manufacturing company here in Laguna for almost 25 years. For the first 20 years, I was a regular, rank-and-file employee with all the benefits. About five years ago, during a restructuring, my manager, Mr. Dante Ignacio, offered me a ‘promotion’ to a ‘Consultant’ role. The pay was slightly higher, but I had to sign a Contract for Consultancy Services. Honestly, my day-to-day tasks didn’t really change much. I still reported to the same people, followed company procedures, used company equipment, and even filled out daily attendance sheets sometimes for project tracking. My work is crucial for the production line quality control.

    Now, I’m turning 65 next month, the compulsory retirement age in our company policy which mirrors the law. A couple of months ago, I formally wrote to HR and Mr. Ignacio, informing them of my upcoming retirement and inquiring about my retirement package calculation, expecting it to cover my long service. Instead of a response about benefits, I received a letter last week stating that my ‘Consultancy Contract’ is expiring at the end of this month and will not be renewed. It thanked me for my ‘services as a consultant’. When I followed up, HR told me that as a consultant, I’m not entitled to retirement benefits under the company policy or the law.

    I feel cheated and deeply worried. Did signing that contract years ago erase my decades of service? Was I effectively dismissed just before retirement? And is Mr. Ignacio, who pushed for this arrangement, somehow responsible? I always thought I was still a regular employee in substance. I don’t know what to do. Any guidance you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

    Sincerely,
    Roberto Valdez
    Musta Atty! – RValdez@email.com

    Dear Roberto,

    Thank you for reaching out. I understand your distress and confusion regarding your employment status and entitlement to retirement benefits after such long service with the company. It’s disheartening to face this uncertainty, especially so close to your planned retirement.

    The core issue here revolves around determining whether an employer-employee relationship truly existed between you and the company despite the ‘Consultancy Contract’ you signed. Philippine labor law emphasizes substance over form; the nature of the actual work arrangement, control exercised by the employer, and the necessity of your tasks are often more decisive than the title or contract given. If an employer-employee relationship is established, your termination without just cause right before retirement could be considered illegal dismissal, potentially entitling you to specific benefits.

    Consultancy vs. Regular Employment: Unmasking Your True Status

    Determining whether someone is an independent contractor (like a consultant) or a regular employee is crucial because regular employees enjoy significant rights and protections under the Labor Code, including security of tenure and retirement benefits. Courts often use the four-fold test to ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct (the ‘control test’). The control test is generally considered the most important factor.

    You mentioned that despite the ‘consultancy’ label, your tasks remained largely unchanged, you reported to the same superiors, followed company procedures, and even used company resources and tracking systems like attendance sheets. These factors strongly suggest that the company retained significant control not just over the results of your work, but also over the means and methods by which you performed it. This level of control is a hallmark of an employer-employee relationship, not typically found in a genuine independent consultancy.

    Furthermore, the nature of your work – quality control crucial for the production line – appears to be usually necessary or desirable in the ordinary course of the company’s manufacturing business. Engaging someone to perform such tasks continuously for years often points towards regular employment, regardless of contractual designations. The law protects employees from schemes designed to circumvent their rights to security of tenure and benefits.

    “The issue of illegal dismissal is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties herein. It is essentially a question of fact
 Records reveal that both the LA and the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, have found substantial evidence to show that respondent Dakila was a regular employee who was dismissed without cause.”

    This principle highlights that courts look at the actual evidence of the relationship, not just the contract’s label. If substantial evidence shows control and necessity of work, a finding of regular employment is likely, even if a consultancy contract exists.

    If you are indeed found to be a regular employee, the company’s refusal to renew your contract, effectively terminating you right before your compulsory retirement age without a valid cause (like serious misconduct or authorized causes like redundancy with proper procedures), could constitute illegal dismissal. An employee unjustly dismissed is typically entitled to certain remedies.

    “Following Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages computed from the time he was illegally dismissed.”

    However, since you are already at the compulsory retirement age, reinstatement is no longer a feasible option. In such cases, the appropriate remedy shifts. Instead of reinstatement and potentially separation pay, you would be entitled to your retirement benefits as mandated by law (like R.A. 7641 or The New Retirement Pay Law, if applicable) or under a more favorable company retirement plan or Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), if one exists. Your backwages, in this specific scenario where dismissal happens right before retirement, might be computed only for the period between the dismissal and your compulsory retirement date.

    Regarding the liability of your manager, Mr. Ignacio, the law generally upholds the principle of separate corporate personality. A corporation is treated as distinct from its officers and directors. Corporate officers are usually not held personally liable for the corporation’s obligations, such as payment of monetary awards in labor cases, unless specific grounds exist.

    “The mere lack of authorized or just cause to terminate one’s employment and the failure to observe due process do not ipso facto mean that the corporate officer acted with malice or bad faith. There must be independent proof of malice or bad faith
 Perforce, petitioner Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote cannot be made personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation which, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members.”

    To hold Mr. Ignacio personally liable alongside the company, you would need to present independent proof that he acted with malice, bad faith, or gross negligence in directing your termination or in the consultancy arrangement itself, beyond simply implementing company decisions. This is often a high bar to meet.

    “Moreover, for lack of factual and legal bases, the awards of moral and exemplary damages cannot also be sustained.”

    Similarly, claims for damages like moral and exemplary damages require proof of bad faith, fraud, or oppressive conduct by the employer, not just the fact of illegal dismissal.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Gather Evidence: Collect all documents proving control and the nature of your work (e.g., old employee IDs, memos, emails with instructions, performance evaluations, attendance records, project assignments, testimonies from colleagues).
    • Review Your ‘Contract’: Examine the ‘Contract for Consultancy Services’ alongside your actual work practices. Note discrepancies that show employer control.
    • Check Retirement Policy/Law: Obtain a copy of the company’s retirement policy and familiarize yourself with R.A. 7641 (The New Retirement Pay Law) to understand your potential entitlements based on your total years of service (including the time before the consultancy contract).
    • Document Everything: Keep records of all communications with HR and management regarding your retirement and the non-renewal/termination.
    • Consider Filing a Complaint: You have the right to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of retirement benefits, and other claims before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) through the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) or directly with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
    • Officer Liability Assessment: Realistically assess if you have concrete evidence of malice or bad faith specifically attributable to Mr. Ignacio, separate from the company’s actions, if you intend to pursue personal liability.
    • Seek Formal Legal Counsel: Your situation involves specific facts and requires navigating complex legal standards. Consulting a labor lawyer is highly recommended to evaluate your evidence and guide you through the legal process effectively.

    Your situation highlights a common issue where contractual labels conflict with the reality of the employment relationship. Based on your description, there appears to be a strong basis to argue that you remained a regular employee despite the consultancy contract, and thus, should be entitled to retirement benefits upon reaching the compulsory retirement age. The company’s actions may indeed constitute illegal dismissal.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can My Employer Terminate Me For Taking Sick Leave?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty? I’m writing to you because I’m really confused and worried about my job. Last month, I had a terrible migraine and couldn’t go to work. I informed my supervisor and even submitted a medical certificate when I got back. A few other colleagues were also absent that day due to various reasons, mostly health-related. Then, last week, our HR started sending us notices about allegedly violating company policy by taking ‘unauthorized leave.’

    Now, they’re threatening to terminate us, claiming we participated in some sort of illegal work stoppage, which doesn’t make sense because we were all just sick. I’ve been with the company for five years and always followed the rules. Is it legal for them to do this? I’m really scared of losing my job, especially because I have a family to support. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated.

    Salamat po.

    Sincerely,
    Ana Ibarra

    Dear Ana,

    Musta Ana! I understand your concern regarding the notices you and your colleagues received. It sounds like your employer is alleging that your absences constituted some form of illegal work stoppage or mass leave. I assure you, under Philippine labor law, employers cannot simply terminate employees for valid absences like sick leave if properly justified and within company policies.

    Understanding Your Rights Regarding Termination for Absences

    The key question here revolves around whether your employer followed the proper procedures for termination and whether there was just cause. Under the law, employees have the right to security of tenure, meaning they cannot be dismissed without a valid reason and without being given due process. This includes both procedural and substantive due process, where employers must follow specific steps when terminating an employee, including providing written notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.

    In your situation, it’s important to determine whether your employer met these requirements. Did they provide you with a clear and specific explanation of the charges against you? Did they give you a reasonable opportunity to explain your side of the story? Did they conduct a hearing or conference where you could present your evidence and defend yourself? If they failed to do any of these things, then your termination may be considered illegal.

    Furthermore, the reason for your termination must be a valid one under the law. Serious misconduct is often cited as a ground for dismissal, but it must be of a grave and aggravated character. Simply being absent due to illness, with proper notification and documentation, generally does not constitute serious misconduct. As the Supreme Court has stated:

    Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct; the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful in character implying wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. (Aliviado v. Procter & Gamble, Phils., Inc.)

    The absence must be serious, be related to the performance of the employee’s duties, and must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. In your situation, being sick does not meet that standard.

    Moreover, you and your colleagues were terminated for allegedly participating in an illegal strike, the Court defines strike as:

    any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of any industrial or labor dispute. (Art. 212(o) of the Labor Code)

    Here, you and your colleagues were absent for various reasons to attend to your personal needs or affairs, and you reported for work on the afternoon after receiving the text messages asking you to do so showing no intention to go on strike.

    Under the implementing rule of Art. 277, an employee should be given “reasonable opportunity” to file a response to the notice, it stated that:

    This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint.

    The 24 hours they gave you to respond to the notice is severely insufficient.

    The Court stated that:

    The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. (Art. 277(b) of the Labor Code)

    From your statements, the employer does not have proof to prove that your dismissal was for a just cause.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Document Everything: Keep records of all communication with your employer, including notices, memos, and emails.
    • Consult with a Labor Lawyer: Seek professional legal advice to assess the specific details of your case and determine the best course of action.
    • File a Complaint: If you believe you were illegally dismissed, file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
    • Gather Evidence: Collect any evidence that supports your claim, such as medical certificates, attendance records, and company policies.
    • Attend Hearings: If a hearing is scheduled, attend and present your case with the assistance of your lawyer.
    • Negotiate with Your Employer: Consider negotiating a settlement with your employer to avoid a lengthy legal battle.

    Remember, you have rights as an employee, and it’s important to assert those rights if you believe they have been violated. Don’t hesitate to seek legal assistance and explore all available options to protect your job and your livelihood.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can My Employer Dismiss Me for Joining a Union?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! I’m writing to you because I’m in a really stressful situation at work. I’ve been working as a waiter at a local restaurant for almost five years. Recently, some of my colleagues and I started talking about forming a union to address some issues like low wages and lack of benefits. However, our manager found out about our plans and has been making our lives difficult ever since. He’s been giving us the worst shifts, assigning us the most difficult tasks, and even falsely accusing us of poor performance. Last week, two of my colleagues were suddenly fired, allegedly for “violating company policy,” but we all know it’s because of the unionizing efforts. I’m afraid I might be next. I’m really worried about losing my job, especially since I have a family to support. Is what my employer is doing legal? Do I have any rights in this situation? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

    Salamat po!

    Ramon Estrada

    Dear Ramon,

    Magandang araw, Ramon! I understand your concerns regarding the situation at your workplace. It sounds like you’re facing potential repercussions for exercising your right to form a union, which is a protected right under Philippine labor law. Let’s clarify some of the key legal principles that apply to your situation.

    Protecting Your Right to Organize: Unfair Labor Practices

    In the Philippines, employees have the right to self-organization, meaning they can form, join, or assist labor organizations for collective bargaining purposes. Your employer cannot interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of this right. Any action taken by your employer to discourage or prevent you from forming or joining a union may be considered an unfair labor practice (ULP). This is a violation of the Labor Code, and you have legal recourse if your employer engages in such practices. The law requires employers to respect the rights of their employees.

    An unfair labor practice can take many forms, including dismissing or discriminating against employees because of their union activities. In your case, the sudden firing of your colleagues after they began organizing a union raises a strong suspicion of ULP. The burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. If the employer cannot provide sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal, it will likely be deemed illegal. Keep in mind that mere suspicion or unsubstantiated accusations are not enough to justify dismissal. The employer must have solid proof of the wrongdoing.

    Furthermore, employees who are dismissed without just cause and due process are entitled to certain remedies. These remedies may include reinstatement to their former position, payment of backwages (the wages they would have earned had they not been illegally dismissed), and potentially, damages for the emotional distress and hardship caused by the illegal dismissal.

    Now, regarding employers being held liable. A corporation is distinct from its directors, officers, and employees. But there are exceptions. Corporate officers can be held jointly and severally liable if they acted with malice or bad faith in the termination of employees.

    “Section 31 of the Corporation Code makes a director personally liable for corporate debts if he willfully and knowingly votes for or assents to patently unlawful acts of the corporation. It also makes a director personally liable if he is guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation.”

    This means that if your manager or other company officers acted in bad faith or with malice in dismissing your colleagues, they could be held personally liable along with the company. This adds another layer of protection for employees who are victims of unfair labor practices.

    Moreover, the law penalizes acts of unfair labor practice.

    Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer interferes, restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or the right to form an association.

    It also requires substantial evidence to support the claim that employer committed unfair labor practice:

    In order to show that the employer committed unfair labor practice under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

    Considering the facts, the immediate impulse of respondents (petitioners herein), as in the case at bar, was to terminate the organizers. Respondents (petitioners herein) have to cripple the union at sight, to frustrate attempts of employees from joining or supporting it, preventing them, at all cost and to frustrate the employees’ bid to exercise their right to self-organization.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of all incidents of harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment you and your colleagues experience. Note dates, times, specific actions, and any witnesses present.
    • Gather Evidence: Collect any evidence that supports your claim that the dismissals were related to union activity. This might include emails, memos, text messages, or statements from other employees.
    • Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with a labor lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your legal options and determine the best course of action.
    • File a Complaint: Consider filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor practice. Your lawyer can guide you through this process.
    • Inform Your Colleagues: Share information about your rights and the legal protections available to them. Encourage them to seek legal advice as well.
    • Be Prepared for Potential Retaliation: Unfortunately, employers sometimes retaliate against employees who assert their rights. Be aware of this possibility and take steps to protect yourself, such as documenting any further incidents of harassment or discrimination.
    • Know your rights: No employee shall be discriminated against in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment because of his or her membership in or affiliation with a labor organization.

    I hope this information is helpful, Ramon. Remember, you have the right to stand up for your rights and the rights of your colleagues.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can My Employer Deny Benefits for My Illness?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! I hope this email finds you well. I’m writing to you today with a heavy heart and a lot of confusion. I’ve been working as a seafarer for almost ten years, and recently, I’ve been diagnosed with a serious illness. It’s been tough, but what’s making it even harder is the response from my employer.

    When I sought medical assistance and filed for disability benefits, they initially seemed supportive. However, they’re now questioning whether my illness is work-related, even though the company doctor gave me a disability grading! They’re saying that because the exact cause of my illness is hard to pinpoint, they might not be obligated to provide full benefits. This is despite the fact that my work exposes me to various chemicals and conditions at sea.

    I’m feeling lost and uncertain about my rights. I’ve always given my best to this job, and now that I need their support, I feel like they’re turning their backs on me. What are my rights in this situation? Can they deny me benefits just because the connection between my job and illness isn’t 100% clear? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you for your time and expertise.

    Sincerely,
    Luis Ramos

    Dear Luis,

    Musta! I understand your concerns regarding your employer’s response to your request for disability benefits. It’s indeed a stressful situation when your health is at stake, and you’re facing uncertainty about your entitlements.

    In cases like yours, Philippine labor laws, particularly those governing seafarers’ employment, generally provide a disputable presumption that illnesses contracted during your employment are work-related. This means the burden often shifts to the employer to prove otherwise.

    Was Your Condition Caused by Your Work?

    The core issue you’re facing is whether your illness is considered work-related, and the employer has the burden of proof to demonstrate it is not. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) plays a significant role in determining your rights and benefits. It establishes a framework for compensating seafarers who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses during their employment.

    The POEA-SEC outlines specific conditions and illnesses that are considered occupational diseases. However, it also recognizes that illnesses not explicitly listed can still be considered work-related. This is where the concept of disputable presumption comes into play. A disputable presumption means that the law assumes a certain fact to be true unless proven otherwise. In the context of seafarers, illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are presumed to be work-related.

    This presumption is based on the understanding that seafarers often work in hazardous conditions and are exposed to various risks that can contribute to the development of illnesses. It is crucial to note that, in your case, even if your illness isn’t on a list, the burden shifts to your employers to prove your illness is not work-related.

    To be eligible for compensation for an occupational disease, these conditions must be met:

    SECTION 32-A OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

    For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

    1. The seafarer’s work must involve the risks describe 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;
    4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

    This demonstrates that your work must have risks, and the disease was a result of your exposure, in a reasonable amount of time, with no negligence on your side.

    This legal principle protects seafarers and recognizes the unique challenges they face in their profession. The intent of this is to ensure employers provide fair compensation and support to those who become ill or injured while serving at sea. To further reiterate the importance of the POEA-SEC:

    “to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith” and “to promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.”

    Meaning that the POEA-SEC exists to ensure your rights and safety as a Filipino worker.

    In determining whether your illness is work-related, several factors will be considered. The nature of your job as a seafarer, the conditions you were exposed to, and any relevant medical findings will all play a role. If there is a reasonable connection between your work and your illness, it is more likely to be considered work-related. Moreover:

    It is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that a reasonable connection between the employee’s illness and their work is sufficient to establish compensability. As for the medical assessment:

    Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work, or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

    In your situation, the fact that the company doctor provided a disability grade is significant. That acknowledgement can strengthen your claim for benefits.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Gather Medical Records: Compile all medical records related to your diagnosis and treatment. These will serve as evidence to support your claim.
    • Seek Expert Medical Opinion: Consult with an independent physician who can provide an objective assessment of your condition and its potential connection to your work.
    • Document Work Conditions: Keep a detailed record of your work conditions, including any potential hazards or exposures to chemicals or other substances.
    • Review Your Employment Contract: Thoroughly review your employment contract, particularly the provisions related to disability benefits and medical coverage.
    • Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with a labor lawyer experienced in handling seafarer cases. They can provide guidance on your legal rights and options.
    • File a Formal Claim: Prepare and file a formal claim for disability benefits with your employer, ensuring that you include all relevant documentation and evidence.
    • Consider Mediation: Explore the possibility of mediation to reach a settlement with your employer. This can be a less adversarial and more efficient way to resolve the dispute.

    Remember that you have rights as a seafarer, and the law is there to protect you. Do not hesitate to seek assistance from legal and medical professionals who can help you navigate this challenging situation.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can My Employer Deduct Money From My Salary for Cash Shortages?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! I’m writing to you because I’m in a bit of a bind with my employer. I work as a cashier at a local supermarket. Recently, there have been a few instances where my cash register came up short at the end of my shift. These shortages weren’t huge, usually just a few hundred pesos. My employer is now saying they will deduct the missing amounts from my next salary. I’m worried because I rely on my full salary to support my family. Is this legal? Can they just deduct money from my salary like that? It feels unfair, especially since I’m not sure how the shortages happened. I’m always careful, but mistakes can happen, or sometimes customers confuse me. What are my rights in this situation? Any guidance you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you in advance for your help.

    Sincerely,
    Carlos Mendoza

    Dear Carlos,

    Hello Carlos! I understand your concern about your employer deducting money from your salary due to cash shortages. It’s a common issue, and it’s important to know your rights as an employee. Generally, Philippine labor law protects employees from arbitrary deductions. Here’s a breakdown of the key principles at play:

    Protecting Your Wages: The Importance of Due Process

    In the Philippines, your wages are protected by law. Employers cannot simply deduct amounts from your salary without due process and a clear legal basis. The principle is that you are entitled to receive the full amount you’ve earned, subject only to authorized deductions. This is outlined in the Labor Code of the Philippines and related jurisprudence. These protections are in place to ensure fair labor practices and prevent employers from taking advantage of their employees.

    One crucial aspect of this protection is the requirement of due process. This means that before any deduction can be made, your employer must conduct a fair investigation to determine your responsibility for the cash shortage. You have the right to be informed of the charges against you, to present your side of the story, and to offer evidence in your defense. Without a proper investigation and a clear finding of fault, any deduction is likely to be considered illegal.

    Dishonesty and gross misconduct are serious offenses that can lead to disciplinary actions, including dismissal. However, these findings must be based on solid evidence and a fair process. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of integrity in the workplace, particularly for employees handling funds. The court has ruled in the past that:

    “The Court has been constant and unceasing in reminding all its judicial officers and other workers in the Judiciary to faithfully perform the mandated duties and responsibilities of their respective offices. The Court is ever aware that any act of impropriety on their part, be they the highest judicial officers or the lowest members of the workforce, can greatly erode the people’s confidence in the Judiciary.”

    This highlights the high standard of conduct expected of employees in positions of trust.

    However, even if there is a finding of dishonesty or gross misconduct, the employer must still follow the proper procedures for disciplinary action. This includes issuing a notice of the charges, giving you an opportunity to respond, and conducting a hearing if necessary. Only after these steps have been followed can the employer impose a penalty, such as a deduction from your salary.

    The Supreme Court has defined misconduct and grave misconduct in the following way, which is very relevant to a case of dishonesty:

    “Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge the duties of the office. There must also be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law.“

    Even if misconduct is found, it has to be directly related to your job duties. An employer cannot just claim dishonesty and deduct money, without proving your intention to do wrong.

    The Importance of Restitution: If you are found responsible for the cash shortage, your employer may require you to restitute the missing amount. Restitution is the act of restoring something to its rightful owner. In this case, it would mean repaying the money that went missing from the cash register. However, even the demand for restitution must be reasonable and fair.

    The case also emphasizes the accountability of immediate supervisors to prevent these things from happening. In the case, the court said:

    “Before closing, the Court notes that despite the lack of a showing of a conspiracy in the defraudation of the Judiciary between Baterbonia and Atty. Barluado, her immediate superior officer, the latter concededly failed to exercise utmost diligence in his oversight of her discharge of her duties as the cash clerk
”

    It’s not always the employee’s fault, and the employer has a responsibility to supervise cash handling activities to safeguard from possible losses.

    It is important to reiterate the constitutional mandate which states that:

    “Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares that a public office is a public trust, and mandates public officers and employees at all times to be accountable to the people, to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, to act with patriotism and justice, and to lead modest lives.”

    In this case, this means that an employer should conduct their business with integrity and fairness.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Request a Formal Investigation: Write a letter to your employer formally requesting a thorough and transparent investigation into the cash shortages.
    • Document Everything: Keep a record of all cash register readings, any discrepancies you notice, and any communication with your employer.
    • Seek Union Representation: If your supermarket has a union, seek assistance from your union representative to protect your rights.
    • Know Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with the relevant provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines regarding deductions from wages.
    • Offer a Rebuttal: If you believe that the shortages occurred due to factors beyond your control (e.g., faulty equipment, customer confusion), present this information during the investigation.
    • Inquire About Cash Handling Procedures: Ask your employer if they have specific procedures to prevent or identify cash shortages, and whether these were followed.
    • Consult with a Labor Lawyer: If the situation escalates or you feel your rights are being violated, consider consulting with a labor lawyer for legal advice.

    I hope this helps! Knowing your rights is the first step in resolving this issue. By taking proactive steps to protect your interests, you can ensure that your employer treats you fairly and complies with the law.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can I be charged for illegal recruitment if I was only following orders?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty? I’m writing to you because I’m in a really confusing situation and I need some legal advice. I used to work as a clerk in a small recruitment agency, and my job was mostly just handling paperwork and receiving payments. The agency promised jobs abroad, and I was just following my boss’s instructions. Now, I’m being accused of illegal recruitment because the agency wasn’t licensed, and some applicants are saying I personally promised them jobs. I never intended to deceive anyone; I was just doing what I was told.

    I’m worried about the possibility of facing charges and penalties. Is it possible to be held liable for illegal recruitment even if I was just an employee following orders? I wasn’t the one who made the decisions about recruitment. I feel like I am now being punished for something that was beyond my control. I barely made enough to survive and had no knowledge of this. This could possibly ruin my life!

    I would really appreciate any guidance you could provide on this matter. Thank you so much!

    Sincerely,
    Maria Hizon

    Dear Maria,

    Musta! I understand your concern about being accused of illegal recruitment, especially since you were just following your employer’s instructions. The key issue here is whether your actions, even as an employee, constitute recruitment activities and whether you knew or should have known that the agency lacked the proper license. You may be held liable as a principal by direct participation since you personally undertook the recruitment of private complainants without a license or authority to do so.

    Navigating the Murky Waters of Accountability in Recruitment

    The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penalized under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. Understanding the legal framework is crucial. The law defines illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including promising or advertising for employment abroad, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. This means that even if you were not the owner of the agency, your actions in recruiting workers can still be considered illegal if the agency lacked the necessary license.

    To determine liability, the law considers two essential elements. First, there must be an undertaking of activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any of the prohibited practices under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042). Second, the offender must lack a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement. In your situation, even if you were following orders, your role in promising or facilitating employment for a fee could be construed as recruitment, particularly if this occurred against three or more people.

    SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee  or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, x x x:

    x x x x

    Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

    The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.

    The Supreme Court has stated that:

    The provisions of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 are unequivocal that illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit.  It is immaterial, therefore, whether appellant remitted the placement fees to “the agency’s treasurer” or appropriated them.  The same provision likewise provides that the persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories.  Just the same, therefore, appellant can be held liable as a principal by direct participation since she personally undertook the recruitment of private complainants without a license or authority to do so.

    Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 is a special law, making its violation malum prohibitum. This means that intent is immaterial and mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable. Therefore, even if you were unaware that your actions constituted a crime or that the agency was unlicensed, you can still be held liable if you engaged in recruitment activities.

    However, you are able to defend yourself against this, but it would depend on the circumstances. If your participation was genuinely limited and you had no knowledge of the illegal nature of the recruitment activities, you might argue that you were merely an employee acting in good faith. However, this argument must be supported by strong evidence. Factors like the extent of your involvement, whether you directly interacted with applicants, and whether you received any direct benefit from the illegal recruitment would all be considered by the court.

    In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34[21] of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Gather Evidence: Collect all documents, communications, and records that support your claim that you were merely an employee following orders.
    • Consult a Lawyer: Immediately seek legal counsel to assess your situation and develop a defense strategy.
    • Cooperate with Authorities: Be truthful and cooperative with any investigations, but do not admit guilt without legal advice.
    • Highlight Limited Involvement: Emphasize the limited scope of your responsibilities and lack of decision-making power within the agency.
    • Establish Lack of Knowledge: Provide evidence that you were unaware of the agency’s unlicensed status and that you acted in good faith.
    • Affidavit of Explanation: Draft a sworn affidavit detailing your role, responsibilities, and lack of knowledge of the illegal activities.

    I understand this is a stressful situation, but by taking these steps and seeking proper legal advice, you can navigate this challenge and protect your rights.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can My Employer Force Me Back to Work After a Dispute?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty? I’m writing to you because I’m in a really difficult situation at work and I’m not sure what my rights are. A few weeks ago, I had a serious disagreement with my supervisor. It got pretty heated, and honestly, I felt like I was pushed out. They didn’t formally fire me, but the message was clear: I wasn’t wanted there anymore.

    Now, out of the blue, the company is saying they want me back. They claim I was never dismissed and are offering me my old position. But after everything that happened, I’m terrified of going back. I fear there will be retaliation, and the work environment will be unbearable. I feel like I’m being forced into a situation that could be really bad for my mental health.

    I’m confused and scared. Do I have to accept their offer of reinstatement? Can they force me to return to a hostile work environment? If I refuse, will I lose my right to any compensation? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

    Sincerely,
    Ramon Estrada

    Dear Ramon,

    Musta to you too! I understand your anxiety about returning to a workplace after a dispute with your supervisor. The key legal principle in your situation revolves around whether you were effectively dismissed and, if so, whether you can refuse reinstatement due to strained relations with your employer.

    If returning to your former position would create an intolerable work environment, Philippine labor law provides potential remedies. Let’s delve into the details to clarify your rights and options.

    Navigating Strained Relations in Philippine Labor Law

    When an employee is illegally dismissed, the typical remedy is reinstatement to their former position. However, the law recognizes that sometimes, due to the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, reinstatement may no longer be a viable option. This is where the principle of strained relations comes into play. This principle acknowledges that in certain situations, the relationship between the employer and employee has deteriorated to such an extent that a harmonious working environment is no longer possible.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that reinstatement is the general rule, but an exception exists when strained relations are present. It’s important to understand that strained relations must be proven with clear and convincing evidence; a mere allegation is insufficient. In your case, the heated disagreement with your supervisor and your fear of retaliation could potentially constitute evidence of strained relations.

    The Court has emphasized the importance of a positive and productive work atmosphere. It acknowledges that forcing an employee to return to a hostile environment would be detrimental to both the employee’s well-being and the company’s overall efficiency. This is not a light issue, as labor laws recognize the value of a peaceful and productive relationship, and tries to find solutions that balance the rights of both parties.

    Here are a few important citations about reinstatement and the exception when the relations are strained:

    “The Court is well aware that reinstatement is the rule and, for the exception of ‘strained relations’ to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that, if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.”

    It is clear that the exception must not be taken lightly; and the court will consider that any decision is done to promote the rights of all parties.

    “Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.”

    This demonstrates that an option exists, not to force both parties into a situation that would ultimately be against both interests. The Court protects the rights of the employee, and the employer.

    “Moreover, the doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay.”

    Note that the desire to avoid the environment is something that should be taken into consideration.

    If strained relations are established, you may be entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Separation pay is a monetary amount awarded to an illegally dismissed employee as compensation for the loss of their job. The amount of separation pay typically depends on the employee’s length of service.

    The Court has also clarified that if reinstatement is not feasible, the employee is generally entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service. However, it’s important to note that the exact amount may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Document everything: Keep detailed records of all communication with your employer, including emails, memos, and meeting notes. This documentation will be crucial if you decide to pursue legal action.
    • Consult with a labor lawyer: Seek legal advice from an experienced labor lawyer who can assess your situation and provide personalized guidance based on the specific facts of your case.
    • Gather evidence of strained relations: Collect any evidence that supports your claim that returning to work would be detrimental to your well-being and productivity. This could include witness statements, performance reviews, or medical records.
    • Consider a settlement negotiation: Explore the possibility of negotiating a settlement agreement with your employer that includes a fair separation package and a release of claims.
    • Formally respond to the reinstatement offer: In writing, clearly communicate your concerns about returning to work and your reasons for believing that strained relations exist. Consult with your lawyer on the best way to phrase your response.
    • File a case for illegal dismissal: if you believe you were constructively dismissed, consider filing a case for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to protect your rights and seek appropriate remedies.

    I hope this clarifies your options. Remember that the specific outcome of your case will depend on the unique facts and evidence presented. Seeking professional legal counsel is crucial to ensure that your rights are protected.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Can My Employer Change My Work Contract After I Start the Job?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! I’m writing to you because I’m really confused and worried about my job. I recently started working overseas as a caregiver. Before I left the Philippines, I signed a contract with my agency that stated my salary, working hours, and benefits. However, when I arrived at my employer’s house, they presented me with a new contract that had lower pay and longer hours. They said if I don’t sign it, they’ll send me back home.

    I felt like I had no choice but to sign the new contract because I had already spent so much money to get here, and my family back home is depending on me. Now, I’m working longer hours for less money, and I don’t know if this is even legal. Did my employer’s actions violate the original contract that I signed in the Philippines? What are my rights in this situation, and what can I do to protect myself?

    Thank you in advance for your help. I really appreciate any guidance you can offer.

    Sincerely,
    Sofia Javier

    Dear Sofia,

    Kumusta! I understand your concern about the changes to your work contract after you started your job overseas. It’s indeed a stressful situation when the terms of your employment are altered after you’ve already made significant investments to work abroad. In the Philippines, contracts must be honored in good faith, and any changes that significantly disadvantage an employee can be legally questionable.

    It appears you are experiencing contract substitution and possible illegal recruitment. If the new contract you were made to sign has benefits that are lower than the original, POEA-approved contract, then that is considered a violation. You should seek legal remedies as soon as possible.

    Understanding Contractual Integrity in Overseas Employment

    When you enter into an employment agreement, especially for overseas work, that contract is expected to be honored. Philippine law protects workers from having their contracts unilaterally altered to their disadvantage. Let’s discuss how this applies to your situation.

    Your original contract, approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), sets the terms of your employment. This includes your salary, working hours, benefits, and other conditions. When your employer presented you with a new contract that had lower pay and longer hours, this could be considered contract substitution, which is a prohibited practice.

    It is unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor.

    Art. 34. Prohibited Practices. It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority:

    x x x x

    (i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor[.]

    This means that any changes to your contract must be approved by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Additionally, Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042, defines “illegal recruitment” to include substituting or altering employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment.

    Even if you signed the new contract, it does not necessarily mean that you have waived your rights under the original contract. Philippine courts have often ruled that quitclaims and waivers signed by employees are suspect, especially if there is evidence of undue influence or coercion. Given that you felt you had no choice but to sign the new contract, it’s possible that it could be considered void.

    “The acts of respondents of requiring the signing of new contracts upon reaching the place of work and requiring employees to sign quitclaims before they are paid and repatriated to the Philippines are all too familiar stories of despicable labor practices which our employees are subjected to abroad. While it is true that quitclaims are generally given weight, however, given the facts of the case, We are of the opinion that the complainants-appellants executed the same under duress and fear that they will not be allowed to return to the Philippines.”

    Furthermore, constructive dismissal may occur if the new conditions of employment are so unfavorable that you feel compelled to resign. Constructive dismissal happens when you are forced to quit your job because the work conditions have become unbearable.

    Consider this legal point, “A constructive dismissal or discharge is “a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.”

    A constructive dismissal or discharge is “a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.”

    This is a pivotal concept as it relates to overseas workers being exploited for monetary gain. In addition, it could be argued that you have breach of contract if your employer isn’t giving you the working and living situations you were promised originally.

    “Aggravating the contract substitution imposed upon them by their employer, the respondents were made to suffer substandard (shocking, as they put it) working and living arrangements. Both the original contracts the respondents signed in the Philippines and the appointment letters issued to them by Modern Metal in Dubai provided for free housing and transportation to and from the jobsite.”

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Document Everything: Keep copies of both your original contract and the new contract you were asked to sign. Also, document any changes in your working conditions (hours, pay, benefits) and any communication with your employer or agency about these changes.
    • Consult with a Labor Lawyer: Seek advice from a lawyer who specializes in labor law, particularly cases involving overseas Filipino workers. They can assess your situation and advise you on the best course of action.
    • File a Complaint with the POEA: You can file a complaint with the POEA against your agency for contract substitution and other violations. The POEA can investigate your case and impose sanctions on the agency if they are found to be in violation of the law.
    • Contact the Philippine Embassy or Consulate: Reach out to the Philippine embassy or consulate in your host country. They can provide you with assistance and protection, including legal advice and representation.
    • Consider Mediation: Explore the possibility of mediation with your employer or agency. A neutral mediator can help you reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
    • Don’t Resign Immediately: Avoid resigning from your job unless you have no other choice. Resigning could weaken your legal position in a constructive dismissal case.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Am I Entitled to Disability Benefits After a Workplace Accident?

    Dear Atty. Gab,

    Musta Atty! My name is Rafael Aquino, and I’m writing to you because I’m in a difficult situation and need some legal advice. I worked as a maintenance worker for a construction company for five years. Last year, I was seriously injured on the job when scaffolding collapsed, resulting in a broken leg and severe back injuries.

    The company initially covered my medical expenses, but after a few months, they stopped, saying I was taking too long to recover. I’m still unable to work and struggling to make ends meet. I’m worried about my family and our future. I don’t know if I’m entitled to any disability benefits or what my rights are in this situation.

    The company is pressuring me to sign a waiver, but I’m hesitant because I don’t fully understand it. Can they do that? What are my options? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

    Sincerely,
    Rafael Aquino

    Dear Rafael,

    Good day, Rafael! I understand your concerns regarding your workplace injury and the cessation of your medical benefits. It’s important to know your rights, especially when dealing with an injury that prevents you from working. In general, if you sustained an injury at work that prevents you from performing your duties, you may be entitled to disability benefits and further medical treatment.

    Your employer has a responsibility to provide assistance, and you shouldn’t sign anything you don’t fully understand. This situation requires careful consideration to protect your interests. Let’s explore your legal options to ensure you receive the support you deserve.

    Navigating the Complexities of Disability Compensation

    The determination of disability benefits involves several factors, including the nature of your injury, the duration of your inability to work, and the assessments made by medical professionals. It’s crucial to understand that in the Philippines, disability compensation is not solely based on the medical condition but also on the impact on your ability to earn a living. The Labor Code and the POEA Standard Employment Contract (if applicable) play significant roles in defining your rights and the obligations of your employer.

    Your ability to receive disability benefits depends not only on the severity of your injury, but also on how it affects your capacity to work. Even if you are not completely helpless, if your injury prevents you from performing the same kind of work you were trained for, or any similar work that someone with your background could do, you may be considered permanently and totally disabled. This concept is highlighted in the following citation:

    “disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or 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 attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.”

    This principle emphasizes that the focus is on your diminished capacity to earn a living due to the injury. It isn’t just about your physical condition, but the impact that condition has on your livelihood. The application of the Labor Code provisions on disability benefits extends to various employment scenarios, ensuring workers are protected when injuries affect their earning potential.

    Furthermore, the law specifies timeframes for medical assessment and treatment, which are critical to determining the extent of your disability and the corresponding benefits you are entitled to. The initial treatment period is generally 120 days, during which you are considered temporarily totally disabled. However, this period can be extended up to 240 days if further medical attention is required. Here’s what the Supreme Court says:

    “As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.”

    The above explains that during this period, the company-designated physician is expected to assess your condition and determine whether you are fit to work or have a permanent disability. If, after 240 days, no such declaration is made, your temporary total disability may be considered permanent.

    It is also important that you understand that your actions during and after treatment matter. The POEA SEC, in particular, notes that it is the responsibility of the employee to faithfully comply with and observe the terms and conditions of the contract, including the provisions governing the procedure for claiming disability benefits. Thus, not cooperating and refusing to undergo further medical treatment may jeopardize your claims as such would prevent a physician from fully determining your fitness to work within the time allowed by the POEA SEC and by law. In these instances:

    As we outlined above, a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company[-designated] physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.

    Lastly, consider that there are rules on the awarding of damages and attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are awarded when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. If you fail to provide the company-designated physician enough time to assess your condition, you may not be entitled to attorney’s fees. Therefore, adhering to proper medical timelines can ultimately affect the disability benefits you receive.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Seek immediate legal counsel: Consult with a lawyer experienced in labor law and disability claims to understand your rights and options.
    • Document everything: Keep detailed records of all medical treatments, expenses, and communication with your employer and insurance company.
    • Obtain an independent medical evaluation: Consult with a doctor of your choice to get a second opinion on your condition and its impact on your ability to work.
    • Understand the waiver: Before signing any document, have it reviewed by your lawyer to ensure it protects your interests and doesn’t waive any valid claims.
    • File a formal claim: Work with your lawyer to file a formal claim for disability benefits with the appropriate government agency, such as the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) or the Social Security System (SSS).
    • Cooperate with medical assessments: Attend scheduled medical appointments and cooperate with the company-designated physician to ensure a fair evaluation of your condition within the prescribed timeframes.

    Remember, Rafael, it is crucial to understand the specifics of your case. Navigating the legal processes can be complex, but you do not have to do it alone.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.