INTERCREW
SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., STAR EMIRATES MARINE SERVICES, and/or GREGORIO ORTEGA,
petitioners, vs. OFRECINO B. CALANTOC, respondent
G.R. No. 239299 | July 8, 2020
TOPIC: Health, Safety and Social Welfare Benefits
FACTS:
On March 14, 2008, Intercrew Shipping hired
respondent for its foreign principal, Star Emirates Marine Services, as 4th
engineer for a period of 12 months. Respondent underwent a pre-employment
medical examination and was declared “fit for sea duty” despite his high blood
pressure.
Respondent was deployed to join MV Oryx on
March 20, 2008 however he was repatriated 4 months later because he was
diagnosed with mild stroke and his condition worsened.
On January 29, 2009, respondent underwent a
MRI examination which revealed a tumor in the left frontoparietal region of his
brain. On the same date, respondent was admitted to the hospital due to
dysphasia. He was also assessed with meningioma, left parietal convexity,
hypertension stage 2. On respondent’s 10th day in the hospital, he
underwent a surgery on his skull.
Respondent claims that because of his
illness he was unable to return to his customary work as a seafarer for more
than 120 days. Petitioners repeatedly refused to grant him disability benefits.
Thus, he filed a complaint claiming disability compensation, payment of medical
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners, on the other hand, asserted
that there was no accident or medical incident that happened on board the
vessel during the period of respondent’s employment; that respondent only
requested to be signed off due to a pre-existing high blood pressure; that upon
respondent’s arrival, he was referred to the company-designated physician, but
refused to undergo post-employment medical examination; and that respondent
opted to collect his final pay and in fact, executed a release in petitioner’s
favor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to
disability compensation
RULING:
In this case, respondent executed his
employment contract with petitioners on March 14, 2008. Thus, the provisions of
the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment
Contract are applicable and should govern the parties.
There are 2 elements that must concur
before an injury or illness is considered compensable: (1) that the injury or
illness must be work-related; and (2) that the work-related injury or illness
must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.
The “work-related injury,” under the 2000
POEA-SEC, is defined as “injuries resulting in disability or death arising out
of and in the course of employment; “work-related illness” is defined as any
sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational
disease listed under Sec. 32-A of this contract with the following conditions
satisfied:
1.
The seafarer’s work must
involve the risks described herein;
2.
The disease was contracted as a
result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;
3.
The disease was contracted
within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract
it; and
4.
There was no notorious
negligence on the part of the seafarer.
In this case, it is undisputed that in the
respondent’s PEME, he suffered from or had been told that he has high blood
pressure. It is likewise beyond dispute that respondent’s mild stroke is a
compensable disease under Sec. 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC.
However, petitioners, despite knowing that
respondent has a high blood pressure, gave respondent a clean bill of health
before deployment which leads to a conclusion that whatever illness respondent
suffers on board the vessel is work-related.
It is not required that an employee must be
in perfect health when he contracted the illness to be able to recover
disability compensation. It is equally true, that while the employer is not the
insurer of the health of the employees, once he takes the employees as he finds
them, then he already assumes the risk.
Comments
Post a Comment