THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236146. January 10, 2018.]
ZIEGFRED LACSON LAMAYO, petitioner,vs. MST MARINE SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE., LTD., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 10, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236146 [Formerly UDK-16041] (Ziegfred Lacson Lamayo vs. MST Marine Services Philippines, Inc., Thome Ship Management Pte., Ltd., et al.). — The Court:
(1) GRANTS petitioner's:
(a) motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and
(b) motion to litigate as an indigent or a pauper litigant; and to formally DOCKETS the instant case; and
(2) EXCLUDES the National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division) as respondent from the title of this case pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the July 25, 2017 Decision and October 10, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 149726. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of both the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denying petitioner's claim for disability benefits.
Facts
After undergoing the Pre-Employment Medical Examination and having been declared fit for sea duty, petitioner Ziegfred Lacson Lamayo was hired in March 2015 by respondent MST Marine Services, Inc. (MST Marine) on behalf of its foreign principal, respondent Thome Ship Management PTE Ltd. (Thome), for the position of Chief Engineer.
He boarded the vessel Stolt Kilauea and immediately discharged his duties without any issue. However, sometime in August 2015, he noticed a lump on his neck, prompting him to seek medical treatment. Upon reaching Singapore, he was confined at Singapore General Hospital for three (3) days but respondents ordered him to report back to work as the ship could not sail without a Chief Engineer. Despite the doctors' opposition, he was compelled to go back on board where his health continued to deteriorate. He lost almost 13 kilos of weight and could barely stand. Eventually, he was declared unfit to work and was medically repatriated.
On September 4, 2015, petitioner arrived in the Philippines and reported to respondent MST Marine for Post-Employment Medical Examination. 1 Accordingly, he was referred to a surgeon at Cardinal Santos Hospital in San Juan. 2 In the hospital, he allegedly waited until 4 p.m. but he did not get the surgeon's attention. Since he could no longer bear the pain, he decided to seek help from other doctors at his expense.
A certain Dr. Ben Pablico found him to be suffering from "Osteoarthritis with concomitant Rheumatoid Arthritis." Another physician, Dr. Li-Ann Lara-Orencia had a similar finding. Thus, petitioner filed a Complaint against the respondent with the LA, demanding full disability benefits.
In his complaint, petitioner claimed that Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis are work-related. As Chief Engineer, he was constantly exposed to extreme temperatures. He likewise experienced joint strain from carrying heavy loads and was required to stand for prolonged periods of time. He was also using vibrating tools in the engine area.
Furthermore, he maintains that Osteoarthritis is an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships (POEA-SEC). He experienced signs and symptoms of Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis after a month from sailing which was aggravated by his exposure to strenuous work.
For their part, respondents countered that the petitioner precluded the company-designated physician to render a thorough and final assessment when he left without seeing the surgeon he was referred to. Petitioner also failed to report back to the company doctor despite respondents' follow-up. He even disclosed to respondents' staff that he no longer intends to return since the mass in his neck was already removed. As such, respondents contended, petitioner is not entitled to any disability benefits.
The LA 3 sustained the respondents' assertions that petitioner abandoned his treatment and therefore forfeited any disability claims he may have under the POEA-SEC. Aggrieved by the Decision, the petitioner elevated the case to the NLRC, which in turn denied the appeal and affirmed the LA's Decision. aScITE
With the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration by the Commission, the petitioner came to the CA on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Treating the petition, the CA 4 decided to affirm both the LA and the NLRC. The fallo of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the present Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed August 31, 2016 Decision and November 28, 2016 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division in NLRC LAC OFW-M-08-000615-16 (NLRC Case No. M-03631-16) are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED. 5
In support of its Decision, the CA ratiocinated that there is no proof on record that petitioner reported to the respondent manning agency within three (3) working days upon his repatriation. He was seen by MST Marine's Medical Services only on September 14, 2015, ten days after his repatriation. On this respect, he evidently violated the mandatory 3-day medical examination requirement provided under Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. The CA further noted that it is beyond dispute that petitioner consulted with his own physician of choice before the company-designated physician could issue any assessment about his health condition. For the appellate court, this is likewise a clear breach of Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC which essentially provides that resort to a second opinion must be done after the assessment by the company-designated physician. Lastly, the CA found that the certifications issued by petitioner's own doctors were not rigid and detailed, unsupported by diagnostic tests and procedures.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration having been denied in the Assailed Resolution, petitioner is now before the Court.
Issue
The core issue in this case is whether the CA erred in holding that petitioner has forfeited any claim to disability benefits.
Ruling
Subject to defined exceptions, judicial review by the Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence that served as the basis for the proper labor tribunal's determination. The doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts is firm and applies with greater force to labor cases. 6 Here, the LA, NLRC and the CA are consistent in their finding that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements set by Section 20 (A) (3) the 2010 POEA-SEC, which states:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
B.
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure on the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Absent any compelling reason, the Court does not wish to disturb the factual finds of the CA affirming the LA and the NLRC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 25, 2017 Decision and October 10, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 149726 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Certification dated September 14, 2015. Rollo, pp. 133-136.
2.Ibid.
3. LA Joel A. Allones.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles, Fifth (5th) Division.
5.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
6. See Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140812, [August 28, 2001], 416 PHIL. 310-321, Chua v. NLRC, 267 SCRA 196, January 30, 1997; Social Security System Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco, 313 SCRA 250, August 27, 1999; G & M (Phil.), Inc. v. Rivera, G.R. No. 141802, [January 29, 2007], 542 PHIL. 175-180; Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB-ALU) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140150, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 483; Bolinao Security and Investigation, Inc. v. Toston, G.R. No. 139135, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 406; Urbanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138379, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 84; Nadal v. Vistamar Beach Resort & Country Club, G.R. No. 206605 (Notice), [June 9, 2014]; Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 511 Phil. 566, 585 (2007). Nadal v. Vistamar Beach Resort & Country Club, G.R. No. 206605 (Notice), [June 9, 2014].