Suffering seafarer granted moral damages
A young seaman and a first-timer abroad suffered a nervous breakdown because of the very difficult situation aboard the vessel. Instead of being helped by the ship management, he was allegedly allowed to roam the vessel and became the laughing stock of the crew. Nobody helped him. The Supreme Court, through the very emotionally-laden writing of Justice Mariano del Castillo, expressed outrage at the management’s neglect and the employer’s lack of concern. This was in the case of Careers Shipmanagement Phils. Inc. vs. E.J. Godinez (GR 2068261) decided on October 2, 2017.
The court bewailed: “The Court cringes at the thought, generated by the experience in this proceeding, and in past cases, that, despite all the laws passed and jurisprudence created, to level the playing field for the disadvantaged worker, his plight continues against employers who will stop at nothing to avoid their obligations, by taking advantage at the workers’ weakness, ignorance, financial hardships and other handicaps, or by the cunning of their lawyers.” It speaks volumes about our OFWs who are maltreated, maligned, harassed, persecuted, despised, and abused. And this applies much more to land-based OFWs doing dirty, dangerous, difficult, degrading, and deceptive jobs.
The High Court questioned why management did not attend to the seaman who already showed signs of a nervous breakdown: “Indeed, they ignored him as he wanders aimlessly half-naked around the ship and simply make a fool of himself in front of his peers, and (management) allowed him to precariously roam the ship, even as it became evident that he was becoming a danger to himself… In short, he was treated as a stray dog whose presence was merely condoned (or tolerated).” Well, this is not the worst case involving our OFWs. Many are treated as slaves and not allowed to go out as if they are virtual prisoners. Their cellphones and passports are confiscated and they don’t get sufficient food or rest.
The Supreme Court concluded: “It has become evident without need of further elaboration that, in dealing with Godinez, xx and in prosecuting their case, xxx (management) acted in evident malice and bad faith, thus entitling Godinez to moral and exemplary damages. Not only was Godinez’s illness caused directly by his employment, as a result of unnecessary cruelty on the part of the officers aboard the Columbian ship xxx there was also failure and refusal to properly and professionally address his condition, that it became worse.” The Court expressed anger at the “xxx lack of compassion and understanding on the part of the ship’s officers in failing to consider that Godinez was an innocent young man on his very first assignment on board an ocean-going vessel.”
Finally, the court said: “The manner in which Godinez was dealt with in these proceedings evinces a perverse attempt to evade liability by fabricating evidence and utilizing objectionable and oppressive means and schemes to secure victory. It constitutes an affront not only to the Court but to all honest workingmen earning a living through hard work and risking their lives for their families.” Need we say more?
- Latest
