FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193395. November 21, 2018.]
VIRGILIO G. CUENZA, petitioner, vs.ALL OCEAN MARITIME AGENCY, INC., ASSOCIATED MARITIME AGENCY and/or RICARDO T. VELOSO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193395 (VIRGILIO G. CUENZA, Petitioner, v. ALL OCEAN MARITIME AGENCY, INC., ASSOCIATED MARITIME AGENCY and/or RICARDO T. VELOSO, Respondents.) — This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated on February 17, 2010, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
The petitioner was repeatedly hired as a seaman by the same principal, respondent All Ocean Maritime Agency, Inc. (ALLOMA). He finally signed an employment contract on January 14, 2004 as a bosun on board the vessel New Amity for a 10-month voyage. His basic monthly salary was stipulated at US$670.00 on a 44-hour work week, with a guaranteed monthly overtime pay of US$373.00 for 85 hours. 2
About September 28, 2004, he felt some chest pains associated with hypertension and accompanied by epigastric pain while in the performance of his duties. He sought medical attention at the Overseas Medical Center in San Francisco, California where he was diagnosed to have epigastric pain or peptic ulcer with hypertension. The physician referred him to a cardiologist for possible hospitalization. He was subsequently diagnosed to have "hypertension, abdominal/epigastric pain unclear etiology and Pt improved on unknown medication given." 3
On November 11, 2004, the petitioner completed his contract and returned to the Philippines. He alleged to have immediately reported to ALLOMA and requested medical attention. Instead of providing medical services to him, ALLOMA only promised his re-employment. 4 But he was never deployed since then, and his medical condition worsened such that he demanded disability compensation. He initiated a grievance complaint before the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines but ALLOMA denied any liability therein. 5 CAIHTE
The petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking the payment of his disability compensation.
The respondents stated in their position paper that the medical report submitted by the petitioner was not conclusive on the exact injury suffered or the degree of disability benefit claimed under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC); 6 that the belated filing of the claim negated the existence of any health issues suffered by the petitioner when he arrived in the Philippines three years prior; that he did not abide by the requirements under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the POEA-SEC; that his medical report indicated that he suffered from stomach ache instead of chest pain; that he did not go to their office to seek medical assistance; and that they did not promise him re-employment. 7
Labor Arbiter Florentino Darlucio rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner, holding that he had suffered permanent disability and must be paid the amount of US$75,000.00 pursuant to the TCC-NON-IBF Collective Bargaining Agreement, plus 10% of the total award as attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter accorded credence to the petitioner's assertion that he had reported to ALLOMA upon arrival in the country but his medical need was ignored. 8
The respondents appealed to the NLRC, which rendered its decision on December 2, 2008, reversing and setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and dismissing the claim for lack of substantial basis, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the labor arbiter a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered, dismissing the complaint for lack of substantial basis.
SO ORDERED. 9
On April 30, 2009, the NLRC denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration for its lack of merit. 10
The petitioner assailed the outcome by petition for certiorari, claiming that the NLRC thereby gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
As mentioned, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on February 17, 2010, 11 pronouncing that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefit.
The CA opined that the petitioner did not fully substantiate his claim for total and permanent disability benefit. Citing Section 32-A 12 of the POEA-SEC, it held that although hypertension was listed as one of the occupational diseases, he did not prove that his hypertension impaired the function of his other body organs like his kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain. The only documents he submitted to support his claim, which were the two medical reports and the graph issued by the attending physician at the Overseas Medical Center in San Francisco, California, were not sufficient to determine his illness with medical certainty. It also pointed out that he did not submit himself to any post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return, as required by the POEA-SEC. DETACa
The CA noted that on October 1, 2005, the petitioner sent a letter to ALLOMA and requested that the company consider his son, Michael C. Cuenza, for employment; that his letter did not advert to his claim for total and permanent disability benefit; that he in fact expressed therein his utmost appreciation to ALLOMA, and actually stated that his decision to "withdraw or give up the work" had been due to his age; 13 and that such actuations on his part convincingly indicated that his claim for total and permanent disability benefit lacked factual or legal basis.
The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on August 5, 2010. 14
Hence, this appeal, in which the petitioner raises the following issues:
a. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE CBA.
b. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES. 15
The petitioner alleges that upon his arrival in Manila, he requested ALLOMA for a possible by-pass surgery pursuant to his contract and to the recommendation of the attending physicians abroad; that ALLOMA ignored his request and merely offered him re-employment, which did not reach its fruition; that Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC should be read in relation to Section 20-B (4) of the same contract, which provided that if an illness was not listed as an Occupational Disease under Section 32 thereof, the same was disputably presumed as work-related; and that the respondents had the burden to prove that his illness was not work-related.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
The petitioner is not entitled to the disability benefits being claimed. He did not comply with the prescribed procedures, and did not competently prove the required connection between his hypertension and the work conditions, or the cause for the aggravation of his hypertension. aDSIHc
Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC dealt with the compensation and benefits for the work-related injury that a seafarer on board sea-going vessels may have suffered during the term of his employment contract. This provision ought to be read in conjunction with Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC in which the various diseases that are considered work-related and therefore compensable were listed down. In short, any seafarer who claimed entitlement to the compensation and benefits under Section 20-B must be suffering or must have suffered a disability caused by any illness or injury listed under Section 32-A.
In situations where the seafarer claims compensation and benefits that Section 20-B granted to him, the law required him to prove that: (1) he suffered an illness; (2) he suffered the illness during the term of his employment contract; (3) he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-B; (4) his illness was one of the enumerated occupational disease or that his illness or injury is otherwise work-related; and (5) he complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A for an occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be compensable. 16
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner's claim must fail because he did not substantially satisfy the prescribed requirements for him to be entitled to disability benefits. It is beyond dispute that he suffered hypertension while on board the vessel and during the term of his employment contract. However, the medical certificates he submitted, albeit relevant to prove his having contracted the illness, did not in any way prove that such illness was due to or aggravated by his work conditions. Moreover, he did not abide by the procedures required under Section 20-B (3), paragraph 2 of the POEA-SEC requiring him as the seafarer repatriated for medical reasons to submit himself within three working days from his disembarkation to a post-employment medical examination (PEME) by the company-designated physician. The failure of the seafarer to comply with this three-day mandatory reporting requirement resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim the POEA-SEC granted benefits. 17
It is notable that the petitioner was not medically repatriated despite his illness. In fact, the October 4, 2004 medical certificate indicated that he had improved on unknown medication given. 18 His return to the Philippines was by virtue of the completion of his employment contract. Even assuming that his repatriation was medically induced, there was no proof showing that he submitted himself for the PEME by the company-designated physician. He merely claimed, albeit self-servingly, that he immediately reported to ALLOMA but that the latter ignored his request and promised him re-employment instead. Aside from his bare allegations, the petitioner did not offer any proof that he reported to ALLOMA to comply with the mandatory reportorial requirement.
According to Section 32-A (20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, "hypertension is considered compensable when it is shown that: (a) it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability; and (b) there are documents that substantiate said finding, such as chest x-ray report, ECG report, blood chemistry report, funduscopy report, and C-T scan." 19 Unfortunately, the records do not disclose that the petitioner complied with such requirements; hence, his hypertension could not be considered as compensable. The CA thus correctly concluded that the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner were not sufficient to determine with certainty the exact illness suffered or whether the disease was contracted or aggravated by his work conditions. ETHIDa
While the POEA-SEC and other labor contracts must be construed in favor of Filipino seafarers as a rule, this rule must be judiciously applied only to the deserving, and complied with in light of ascertained facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 17, 2010, without pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-38; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, and concurred in by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino.
2.Id. at 27.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 28.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 29-30.
9.Id. at 30.
10.Id. at 30-31.
11.Id. at 26-38.
12. SECTION 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. — For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be 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.
xxx xxx xxx
13.Rollo, p. 35.
14.Id. at 24-25.
15.Id. at 10.
16.Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, G.R. No. 200566, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 494, 511-512.
17.Id.
18.Rollo, p. 27.
19.Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation, G.R. No. 203161, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 538, 551.