## Facts

- Lito Martinez Asignacion, a Filipino seafarer and Philippine resident, worked aboard the M/V RICKMERS DAILAN, owned by Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG, a German shipowner.
- His employment contract was processed through the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and incorporated POEA Standard Terms governing Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels.
- The Standard Terms provided for Philippine dispute resolution (labor arbitration/NLRC processes) and specified Philippine law as the governing law for unresolved disputes arising from or connected with the contract, including tort and negligence claims.
- While the vessel was in the Port of New Orleans, a cascade tank overflowed and Asignacion suffered severe burns to roughly 35% of his body.
- He received initial medical care in Louisiana, was then repatriated to the Philippines, and pursued relief through the POEA dispute-resolution framework.
- A Philippine arbitrator, affirmed through the Philippine labor system, awarded scheduled disability benefits under Philippine law in an amount far below potential recovery under U.S. maritime claims.
- Asignacion had also filed a Louisiana state-court action asserting U.S. maritime causes of action; that court stayed the case and directed the parties to proceed under the POEA dispute-resolution provisions.
- Rickmers later sought recognition and enforcement of the Philippine arbitral award in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under the New York Convention; the district court refused enforcement on public-policy and “prospective-waiver” grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcement of the Philippine arbitral award could be refused under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention as contrary to U.S. public policy because Philippine law provided substantially lower compensation than U.S. maritime law.
2. Whether enforcing the award would impermissibly validate a prospective waiver of U.S. statutory remedies (including Jones Act-related remedies) based on the contract’s Philippine forum and choice-of-law provisions.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to enforce the Philippine arbitral award.
- The court held the Article V(2)(b) public-policy defense is narrow and was misapplied; a remedial disparity between Philippine law and U.S. law did not make enforcement contrary to U.S. public policy.
- The court held the prospective-waiver doctrine did not bar enforcement where the dispute was resolved under a government-mandated Philippine employment framework for a Philippine national and did not involve an express categorical waiver of all U.S. statutory rights.
- The court emphasized that U.S. courts should not refuse enforcement merely because a different legal system produces a smaller award, and should avoid substituting U.S. courts’ merits judgment for the foreign tribunal’s determination.

## Legal Principles

- Under the New York Convention, foreign arbitral awards must be recognized and enforced unless a specified, narrowly construed defense applies.
- Article V(2)(b) permits non-enforcement only when recognition or enforcement would violate the forum’s most basic notions of morality and justice; differences in substantive law or the generosity of remedies are generally insufficient.
- The prospective-waiver doctrine does not automatically invalidate enforcement of an award rendered under a foreign sovereign’s statutory employment and dispute-resolution scheme for its own nationals, absent an express clause stripping a party of statutory remedies in a manner that makes relief illusory.
- Comity and predictability in international maritime labor relations support enforcing awards issued under official, state-supervised regimes that have substantial connections to the employment relationship.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required enforcement of a Philippine arbitral disability award under the New York Convention, rejecting the argument that lower Philippine remedies and the POEA contract’s Philippine forum/choice-of-law provisions, without more, made enforcement contrary to U.S. public policy or an impermissible prospective waiver of U.S. statutory remedies.


Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG, 783 F.3d 1010 (5th Cir. 2015)