JEBSENS MARITIME INC., VS.

ENRIQUE UNDAG

FACTS:

Herein respondent was hired as Lead Operator on board the vessel FPSO Jamestown owned by
Alliance Marine Services, Ltd. and managed by its local agent, Jebsens Maritime,
Inc. Respondent's contract with petitioners was for a period of four (4) months with a basic
salary of US$806.00 a month. He was deployed on March 24, 2003 and eventually repatriated to
the Philippines on July 18, 2003 after his contract with the petitioners had expired.

About two months after repatriation, he went to see a physician and was diagnosed to have
Hypertensive cardiovascular disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Diabetes Mellitus II, Impediment Grade
X. The doctor stated that respondent's ailment was aggravated by his work as a seaman and that
he was no longer fit for work. For said reason, respondent requested for financial assistance from
petitioners but the latter denied his request.

ISSUE:

Whether or not he should be awarded full disability benefits;

HELD:

In line with the POEA-SEC or the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard

Employment Contract, one which is deemed incorporated in every Filipino seafarer's contract of
employment, two elements must concur for an injury or illness to be compensable. First, that the
injury or illness must be work-related; and second, that the work-related injury or illness must
have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.

In this case, the Court is of the considered view that respondent failed to prove that his ailment
was work-related and was acquired during his 4-month sea deployment. Respondent claims that
sometime in July 2003, he showed manifestations of a heart disease when he suddenly felt chest
pains, shortness of breath and fatigability. He, however, never substantiated such claim. He
never showed any written note, request or record about any medical check-up, consultation or
treatment. Similarly, he failed to substantiate his allegation that after his arrival in Manila on
July 18, 2003, he reported to petitioners' office on July 31, 2003 to seek medical consultation for
the discomfort he was experiencing but petitioners ignored him.

Also, respondent failed to comply with the mandatory 3-day medical examination deadline
provided in Section 20(B), paragraph (3) of the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels. As earlier
stated, it was only on September 24, 2003, or more than two (2) months after his arrival in
Manila, that he sought a medical opinion from Dr. Vicaldo who declared him unfit to work as a
seaman.
 ABERDEEN COURT, INC. vs. MATEO C. AGUSTIN JR.

FACTS:

Aberdeen Court, Inc. employed Mateo C. Agustin for the purpose of trouble shooting the
electrical problems in said petitioner’s establishment. Agustin was engaged on a six-month
probationary basis.

On January 12 and 13, 1997 the personnel of Centigrade Industries, Inc. performed a reading of
the exhaust air balancing at the fifth and sixth floors of Aberdeen’s premises. Agustin asserts that
Engr. Abad requested him to accompany the aforesaid personnel to show the location of the
exhaust air outlet at the fifth and sixth floors of the premises, to which he assented despite the
fact that such request is actually the responsibility of the company’s mechanical engineers and
that and there were three (3) other mechanical engineers on duty in the company premises.

It must be noted that the reading of exhaust air balancing is under the category of heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) which are within the realm of field of work of
mechanical engineers. Being an electrical engineer, petitioner obviously has no knowledge of the
procedure and the equipment used by mechanical engineers in the conduct of the reading of the
exhaust air balancing.2

After the Centigrade personnel finished their job, they submitted their report to Agustin who
signed it, without verifying its correctness. Engineer Abad later checked the work of the
Centigrade employees only to find out that four rooms in the fifth floor and five rooms in the
sixth floor were incorrectly done.

Subsequently, he was told that Aberdeen Court is terminating his services as electrical engineer
as he failed to qualify as a regular employee.

ISSUE:

WON the termination was valid;

HELD:

Article 281 of the Labor Code that there are two grounds to legally terminate a probationary
employee. It may be done either: a) for a just cause or b) when employee fails to qualify as a
regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the start of the employment.

It bears stressing that even if technically the reading of air exhaust balancing is not within the
realm of expertise of the complainant, still it ought not to be missed that prudence and due
diligence imposed upon him not to readily accept the report handed to him by the workers of
Centigrade Industries. Required of the complainant was that he himself proceed to the work area,
inquire from the workers as to any difficulties encountered, problems fixed and otherwise
observe for himself the progress and/or condition/quality of the work performed.

As it is, We find it hard to believe that complainant would just have been made to sign the report
to signify his presence. By saying so, complainant is inadvertently degrading himself from an
electrical engineer to a mere watchdog. Thus, We concur with the respondents that by his
omission, lack of concern and grasp of basic knowledge and common sense, complainant has
shown himself to be undeserving of continued employment from probationary employee to
regular employee.