Karapatan sa patas na medical assessment ng seafarer

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Mar. 6, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Sa isyu ng mga disability claims ng mga seafarer, kung sakaling magkaroon ng pagtatalo tungkol sa natuklasan ng doktor ng kumpanya at ng doktor na napili ng isang seafarer na nagtrabaho sa ibang bansa, sino ba ang mananaig? Kasama ba ang isyu ng work relation sa mga sinusuri at pinagpapasyahan ng doktor? — Bogart

---

Dear Bogart, 

Ang sagot sa iyong mga katanungan ay matatagpuan sa mga probisyon ng Republic Act (R.A.) No. 12021, o mas kilala sa tawag na “Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers.” Ayon sa Seksyon 22 ng nasabing batas, kapag may hindi pagkakasundo sa medical assessment ng doktor ng kumpanya at doktor na pinili ng seafarer, ang ikatlong doktor mula sa anumang Department of Health (DOH)-accredited na klinika o sa isang pampublikong rehiyonal o probinsyal na ospital, na magkasamang pinili ng employer at ng seafarer, ang hihiranging tagapagpasya:

“Section 22. Right to a Fair Medical Assessment. - Seafarers shall have the right to a fair medical assessment in the event of injury arising from accidents onboard. Overseas seafarers shall have the right to seek a second opinion from accredited clinics of the Department of Health (DOH) or from other competent and licensed physicians, whenever there is a doubt on the medical assessment of an examining physician or clinic which negatively affects the overseas seafarer's immediate employment. If the clinic or physician selected by the overseas seafarer disagrees with the first assessment, a third doctor (from any DOH-accredited clinic or a DOH regional or provincial hospital), jointly selected by the employer and the seafarer, may be hired by the shipowner or manning agency to make a third medical assessment at no expense to the seafarer. The findings of the third doctor shall be final and binding on both parties.” 

Ayon sa nabanggit, ang mga natuklasan o bunga ng pagsusuri ng ikatlong doktor ay pinal na at may bisa sa magkabilang partido. Gayunpaman, ang nasabing pagsusuri, mga natuklasan, at rekomendasyon ay limitado lamang sa isyu patungkol sa final disability grading o ang fitness to work ng isang seafarer. Hindi nito sakop ang isyu tungkol sa work relation o kaugnayan sa trabaho, viz.: 

“Section 57. Determination of Disability Grading or Fitness to Work. - When the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness occurring between the date of commencing duty and the date upon which they are deemed duly repatriated, or arising from their employment between those dates and still requires medical attention upon repatriation, the seafarer must undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician for treatment until seafarer is declared fit to work or given a disability grading.

A seafarer who disagrees with the company-designated physician’s final assessment may seek its re-evaluation by a physician of choice who specializes in the illness or injury. If the seafarer’s doctor issues a disability grading that is different or contrary to the medical findings of the company-designated physician, the seafarer must file, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the findings of the seafarer’s doctor, a written request with the DMW to refer to conflicting medical grading to a third doctor. The third doctor shall be mutually selected by the employer and seafarer from a pool of DOH-accredited medical specialists relevant to the injury or illness of the seafarer. The third doctor should be duly trained in the determination of maritime disability grading.

With all the medical documents considered and issued by the company doctor and the seafarer’s doctor, the third doctor shall determine the final disability grading which shall be binding upon the seafarer and the employer. This process shall be mandatory before any dispute settlement, arbitration proceeding, or case may be filed, when the issue is the disability grading, fitness to work, or the illness or injury of the seafarer. x x x” 

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Probation, isang pribilehiyo at hindi karapatan ng lahat

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Mar. 5, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Nahatulan ang kapatid ko ng parusang pagkakabilanggo ng walong taon. Maaari ba siyang mag-apply ng probation? — Buboy

---

Dear Buboy,

Una sa lahat, ang probation ay hindi isang karapatan na tinatamasa ng akusado. Ito ay isang espesyal na pribilehiyo na ipinagkakaloob sa mga kuwalipikadong nagsisisi na agad at umamin sa kanilang pananagutan, at sa gayon ay tinatalikuran ang kanilang karapatang mag-apela. Sa pagtanggap sa kanilang kapalaran at pagpayag na magbago, binibigyan sila ng Estado ng pagkakataon na maiwasan ang mantsa ng record ng pagkakulong sa pamamagitan ng pagsailalim sa rehabilitasyon sa labas ng bilangguan. Tinalakay ito ng ating Korte Suprema, sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, sa kasong Jaime Chua Ching vs. Fernando Ching, G.R. No. 240843, ika-03 ng Hunyo 2019. Ayon sa kasong ito, ang probation ay:

“Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to penitent qualified offenders who immediately admit their liability and thus renounce their right to appeal. In view of the acceptance of their fate and willingness to be reformed, the state affords them a chance to avoid the stigma of an incarceration record by making them undergo rehabilitation outside of prison. Some of the major purposes of the law are to help offenders develop themselves into law-abiding and self-respecting individuals, as well as assist them in their reintegration with the community. In Villareal v. People, the Court reiterated that probation is not a right enjoyed by the accused, but rather, an act of grace or clemency conferred by the State, viz.:

It is a special prerogative granted by law to a person or group of persons not enjoyed by others or by all. Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court which is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. The Probation Law should not therefore be permitted to divest the state or its government of any of the latter's prerogatives, rights or remedies, unless the intention of the legislature to this end is clearly expressed, and no person should benefit from the terms of the law who is not clearly within them.

Section 8 of the Probation Law states that ‘[i]n determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court [where the application is filed] shall consider all information relative to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. [Hence,] [p]robation shall be denied if [said] court finds that: (a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; (b) there is an undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or (c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime committed.’ Moreover, probation shall be denied outright to offenders who are deemed disqualified by the Probation Law. x x x”

Gayundin, ang pagkakaloob ng probation ay nakasalalay lamang sa pagpapasya ng hukuman para sa kapakinabangan ng lipunan. Sa pagpapasyang ito, isinasaalang-alang ang potensyal ng nagkasala na mareporma, ang mga hinihingi ng hustisya at interes ng publiko, at kasama ang iba pang nauugnay na mga pangyayari.

Kaugnay nito, nakasaad sa Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 968, na mas kilala bilang “Probation Law of 1976,” na inamyendahan ng Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10707, ang mga hindi kuwalipikadong pagkalooban ng probation, kabilang dito ang mga nasentensyahan ng pagkakakulong ng higit sa anim na taon.

“SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:

a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;

b. convicted of any crime against the national security;

c. who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);

d. who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and

e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.”

Alinsunod sa mga nabanggit, dahil lagpas anim na taon ang sentensya ng iyong kapatid, hindi naaayon sa kaso o sitwasyon niya ang probation.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Stepdaughter bilang testigo

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Mar. 4, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta, 

Ako ay nagkaroon ng madrasta matapos na muling ikasal ang tatay ko. Mabait naman sa akin ang madrasta ko, subalit, nakikita ko na minamaltrato niya ang aming kasambahay.  Nagsampa ng kaso ang kasambahay namin laban sa aking madrasta at pinipilit akong maging testigo laban dito. Sinabihan ako ng aming kasambahay na maaari diumano akong ipatawag at pilitin ng korte para tumestigo laban sa aking madrasta. Kung sakaling ako ay ipatawag ng korte para tumestigo laban sa aking madrasta, maaari ba akong tumanggi?

— Ashley

---

Dear Ashley,

Ayon sa Section 25, Rule 130 ng Rules of Court, hindi maaaring pilitin ang isang tao na tumestigo laban sa kanyang mga magulang, o iba pang direktang ninuno, tulad ng mga lolo at lola. Hindi rin maaaring pilitin na tumestigo ang magulang laban sa kanyang anak, direktang apo, o kaapu-apuhan. Narito ang pahayag ng patakarang legal: 

 “Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.”

Ang pribilehiyong ito ay maaari lamang gamitin ng mga taong nabanggit sa nasabing probisyon ng batas kung sila ay pinipilit na tumestigo laban sa kanilang magulang, direktang ninuno, anak, o direktang kaapu-apuhan. Ang layunin ng batas na ito ay upang maingatan ang relasyon ng bawat pamilya, at maiwasan ang pagdudulot ng pagkakasamaan ng loob o paghihiwa-hiwalay dahil sa mga pagkakataong nabanggit. 

Subalit, sa kaso ng In re: Petition for Cancellation and Correction of entries in the record of birth, Emma K. Lee vs. Court of Appeals, et al (G.R. No. 177861, 13 July 2010), sa panulat ng Kagalang-galang na Mahistrado Roberto Abad, ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na hindi kasama sa nasabing pribilehiyo ang relasyon ng madrasta at anak ng kanyang asawa o stepchildren, sapagkat sila ay hindi direct ascendant o direct descendant ng isa’t isa. Narito ang pahayag sa nasabing kaso: 

“A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother. Article 965 thus provides:

Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.”

Samakatuwid, sa iyong sitwasyon, hindi mo maaaring gamitin ang nasabing pribilehiyo kung sakaling ikaw ay ipatawag ng korte upang tumestigo laban sa iyong madrasta. Maliwanag na hindi itinuturing ng batas na direct ascendant mo ang iyong madrasta.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.