PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE
CARRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, and CARLOS NIETES, respondents
G.R.
No. 123891 | February 28, 2001
FACTS:
On January 23, 1993, private respondent,
Carlos Nietes filed a complaint against Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.
for payment of disability benefit, sickness wages, refund of medical expenses
and attorney’s fees. Private respondent alleged that he was employed by PTC for
the period March 1985 to March 17, 1990. He last boarded M/V MA. ROSARIO where
he served as Master from April 11, 1990 to May 17, 1990.
From May 10, 1990 up to the date that he
was repatriated, Nietes was hospitalized at the Moji Hospital in Moji, Japan,
at the instance of the vessel’s owners. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he
was instructed by PTC and the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s Union of
the Philippines (AMOSUP) to report to the Seamen’s Hospital, a hospital owned
and operated by AMOSUP. On May 19, 1990, Dr. George Mattie of the Seamen’s
Hospital issued a medical certification that he was unfit for work and was
instructed to continue treatment/medication.When he was refused admission at
the Seamen’s Hospital, he was forced to secure medical treatment at the Sto.
Niño Medical Specialist and Emergency Clinic as an out-patient. His attending
physician was Dra. Geraldine B. Emperador. Her diagnosis showed he was unfit to
work as Master of the vessel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to
reimbursement despite the fact that the treatment was done by a physician not
designated or accredited by the petitioner
RULING:
Petitioner was well aware of the private
respondent’s hospitalization at Moji, Japan, as well as his repatriation on May
17, 1990; It was upon the advice of petitioner that he was examined and
diagnosed at the Seamen’s Hospital. There Dr. George Matti, petitioner’s own
accredited physician, declared him unfit to work. Petitioner could not now
feign ignorance of this information. Two licensed physicians examined and
diagnosed private respondent and both of them had issued similar findings, that
private respondent was afflicted with congestive heart failure and
cardiomyopathy making him unfit to work.
Records of the case show that private
respondent had initially sought treatment at Seamen’s Hospital under the care
of Dr. George Matti, a company accredited physician. Only after he was refused
admission thereat was he compelled to seek medical assistance elsewhere. His
life and health being at stake, private respondent did not have the luxury to scout
for a company-accredited physician nor was it fair at this late stage for his
employer to deny him such refund for medical services that previously he was
admittedly entitled to.
The POEA Standard Employment Contract for
Seamen is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen
in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions
must, therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in
their favor. Only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into
effect.
Comments
Post a Comment