CASE DIGEST: Rainbow Maritime Co. v. Capt. Fajardo

 

RAINBOW MARITIME CO., LTD. and CAPT. SILVINO FAJARDO, respondents
G.R. No. 232905                |              August 20, 2018

FACTS:

On January 17, 2014, petitioner entered into a 9-month contract of employment with respondents on board the vessel, MV Oriente Shine, a cargo vessel transporting logs from Westminster, Canada to several Asian countries.

While petitioner was assisting in the unloading of raw logs from the vessel, as well as in the clean-up thereafter of the debris and log residue, the strong odor of the logs left him gasping and triggered his asthma attack.  Petitioner also claimed that he slipped and lost his footing while going down the ship’s galley. Such that during the rigging operation, petitioner experienced back pain and difficulty in breathing prompting his disembarkment for medical consultation at the Mariner's Clinic, Ltd., in Canada where he was declared unfit for duty due to his asthma.

Thus, on February 15, 2014, petitioner was medically repatriated and brought to Marine Medical Services where he was seen by a company-designated physician, who confirmed his bronchial asthma. Subsequent check-ups further disclosed that petitioner was suffering from "Degenerative Changes, Thoracolumbar Spine" and was found to have a "metallic foreign body on the anterior cervical area noted on x-ray," which was pointed out by the company-designated physician, to be not related to the cause of petitioner's repatriation. Petitioner was thereafter referred to orthopedic doctors for rehabilitation and therapy.

On May 14, 2014, the company-designated physician issued a medical report that petitioner still has occasional asthma attacks that have not been totally controlled despite 3 months of maintenance medication. She also noted that petitioner still has tenderness and muscle spasm on his left paraspinal muscle. As such, the company-designated physician gave an interim assessment of "Grade 8 (orthopedic) - 2/3 loss of lifting power and Grade 12 - (pulmonary) slight residual or disorder." Likewise, the orthopedic specialist, consistently reported that petitioner has not been relieved of his back pain despite rehabilitation, and further recommended that the latter undergo MRI, which she pointed out could be done only after the removal of the foreign bodies embedded in petitioner's neck area.

MTI refused to shoulder the extraction procedure procedure as it was not part of the cause for petitioner’s repatriation. Thus, on June 4, 2014, petitioner filed a complaint for nonpayment of his sickness allowance, medical expenses, and rehabilitation fees, against MTI, before the NLRC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to disability benefits

RULING:

Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, a “work-related” illness is defined as “any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.”

In the case at bar, petitioner was diagnosed with “Bronchial Asthma; Degenerative Changes, Thoracolumbar Spine, Left Parathoracic Muscle Strain.” The company-designated physician gave petitioner an “interim” assessment of Grades 8 and 12 for his orthopedic and pulmonary conditions, respectively. While the orthopedic specialist opined that petitioner’s Degenerative Changes, Thoracolumbar Spine, Left Parathoracic Muscle Strain “may be a preexisting” condition, and therefore not work-related, the pulmonary specialist, on the other hand, merely reiterated the previous disability rating of Grade 12. From the foregoing medical report, it can be reasonably inferred that petitioner’s bronchial asthma was deemed a work-related illness unlike his degenerative changes of the spine.

However, there are conditions that should be met before an illness can be considered as preexisting under the 2010 POEA-SEC, namely:  (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition but failed to disclose the same during PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed during the PEME, none of which had been established in this case.

Moreover, degenerative changes of the spine, also known as osteoarthritis, is a listed occupational disease under Sub-Item Number 21 of Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC.

Here, petitioner, as Bosun of respondents’ cargo vessel that transported logs, undeniably performed tasks that clearly involved unduly heavy physical labor and joint strain. In the same vein, petitioner’s bronchial asthma, which is also a listed occupational disease, undeniably progressed while in the performance of his duties and in the course of his last employment contract. Respondents’ assertion that the said illness also existed prior to petitioner’s embarkation, and therefore a preexisting ailment, was not substantiated given that no such declaration was made by the company-designated physician or the attending specialist.

Pursuant to Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness in the course of employment, the company-designated physician is obligated to arrive at a  definite assessment of the former’s fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation. During the said period, the seafarer shall be deemed on  temporary total disability and shall receive his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws. However, if the 120-day period is exceeded and no definitive declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period  may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.  But before the company-designated physician may avail of the allowable 240- day extended treatment period, he must perform some significant act to justify the extension of the original 120-day period. Otherwise, the law grants the seafarer the relief of permanent total disability benefits due to such noncompliance.

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the company designated physician issued an “interim” assessment on May 14, 2014 declaring his disability to be “Grade 8 (orthopedic) – 2/3 loss of lifting power and Grade 12 – (pulmonary) slight residual or disorder.” The gradings were based on the findings that petitioner’s asthma was “still not totally controlled,” while his back problem “still presents with tenderness and muscle spasm on the left paraspinal muscle.” Being an interim disability grade, the declaration was merely an initial determination of petitioner’s condition for the time being and therefore cannot be considered as a definite prognosis. Notwithstanding the temporariness of his findings, the company-designated physician, however, failed to indicate the need for further treatment/rehabilitation or medication, and provide an estimated period of treatment to justify the extension of the 120-day treatment period.