NICANOR CERIOLA, petitioner, vs. NAESS SHIPPING
PHILIPPINES, INC., MIGUEL OCA and/or KUWAIT OIL TANKER, respondents
G.R. No. 193101 | April 20, 2015
FACTS:
After completing his employment contract
onboard the vessel “Gas Al Ahmadi,” petitioner reported to respondent for
extensive medical examination, where he was then diagnosed to be suffering from
early stage of “Lumbar Spondylosis.”
Despite the diagnosis, petitioner was
declared “fit to work” and was deployed for onboard the vessel “Gas Al Burgan”
from July 8, 2000 – April 12, 2001. As per standard procedure, petitioner
underwent medical examination because he was experiencing severe back pains.
The results of the medical examination indicated that the dislocation of
petitioner’s lumbar vertebrae had aggravated. However, considering that his
prior medical clearance in the year 2000 of “fit to work” was effective for 2
years, petitioner was redeployed onboard “Gas Al Burgan” from July 7, 2001 –
April 12, 2002.
Three different certifications come up,
respectively supporting the assertions of either the petitioner or respondents:
1.
Results of petitioner’s medical
consultation from 11 June 2002 to 1 April 2003 which declared petitioner “unfit
to work” due to a work-related injury or ailment, offered in evidence by
petitioner
2.
Results of petitioner’s medical
examination after expiration of his last contract on 12 April 2002 which
declared him “fit to work,” and submitted by respondents NAESS Shipping
Philippines, Inc., Miguel Oca and/or Kuwait Oil Tanker.
3.
Debriefing Questionnaire duly
accomplished by petitioner on 16 April 2002, petitioner specifically stating
that “all ok during his contract inc. his health.”
Petitioner claims disability benefits for a
work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. Petitioner
asseverates that his illness of “Lumbar Spondylosis” is work-related given that
he experienced such while onboard respondents’ vessel in 1999, albeit he was
given a “fit to work” certification effective for two (2) years from year 2000.
He then points out that during his last employment contract from July 2001 to
April 2002, his illness worsened and became aggravated resulting in a diagnosis
of “herniated disc L3-L4 and L4-L5.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to
disability benefits
RULING:
The Court clarified the 2000 POEA-SEC was
already in effect during petitioner’s last employment contract. However, the
implementation of its provisions was temporarily suspended by the SC on Sept.
11, 200. Thus, petitioner’s entitlement to disability benefits are under the
provision of the 1996 POEA-SEC.
Under Section 20(B)(3) of the 1996
POEA-SEC, for the employer to be liable: (1) the injury or illness must occur
during the term of contract, disputably presumed to be work-related; (2) the
injury or illness is work-related; and (3) the work-related injury or illness
is determined in a mandatory post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three (3) working days of the seafarer’s
return.
Claiming entitlement to benefits under the
law, petitioner must establish his right thereto by substantial evidence.
While petitioner has asserted that his
disability is work-related and occurred during the term of his contract, what
jumps out of the different factual findings of all three labor tribunals, the
Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, is that petitioner did not
undergo a post-employment medical examination as required in Section 20 of both
the 1996 and 2000 POEA-SEC. In fact, petitioner refers to the medical
examination he underwent as a “Pre-Post-Employment Medical Examination” from 11
June 2002 to 1 April 2003, which yielded a medical certification that
petitioner is “UNFIT” to work due to a work-related injury or illness.
A mere asseveration that the medical
examination is both “pre and post employment” does not comply with the
mandatory language of the POEA-SEC. The three-day post-employment medical
examination is mandatory.
The rationale for the rule on mandatory
post-employment medical examination within three days from repatriation by a
company-designated physician is that reporting the illness or injury within
three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to
determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of
the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule
might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a
limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing
unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a
claimant’s illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have
no protection against unrelated disability claims.
The post-employment medical examination has
2 requisites: (1) it is done by a company-designated physician, (2) within
three (3) working days upon the seafarer’s return. The only exception thereto
is physical incapacity of the seafarer to undergo said post-employment medical
examination, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same
period is deemed as compliance.
Failure to comply with the mandatory
reporting requirement shall result in the seafarer’s forfeiture of his right to
claim benefits.
Another exception, not found in the law, is
when the employer refuses to refer the seafarer to a company-designated
physician.
Petitioner, in this case, despite his
asseveration that his “Lumbar Spondylosis” worsened during his last employment
contract, did not submit himself to a post-employment medical examination.
Moreover, petitioner’s medical certification, despite it being issued by
respondents’ hospital, was issued only in April 2003, long after the last
employment contract of petitioner had expired — in April 2002.
Petitioner did not proffer a reason for his
failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within 3 working days
from his return given that he claims he suffered the illness during his last
employment contract. At the least, petitioner should have reported that he was
suffering from symptoms of his illness while onboard respondents’ vessel during
the term of his last employment contract.
In all, petitioner utterly failed to
establish by substantial evidence, his entitlement to disability benefits for a
work-related illness under the POEA-SEC, having failed to undergo a
post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within
three (3) working days from his return without valid or justifiable reason.
Comments
Post a Comment