Saso v. 88 Aces Maritime Service
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mark Anthony Saso was engaged by respondent 88 Aces Maritime Service, Inc. as a fisherman on board a vessel owned by respondent Lin Wen Yu. While performing his duties, Saso sustained a fractured right thigh due to an accident involving a falling fishnet. He underwent two surgeries in Taiwan and was repatriated to the Philippines. Procedural History: Saso filed a complaint for disability benefits and other claims against the respondents before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA ruled in favor of Saso, awarding him permanent total disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's ruling, denying Saso's petition. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Saso seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the absence of a post-employment medical examination should not defeat his claim for compensation. He contends that he reported for the examination as required but was instead told to shoulder his medical expenses. The petition also questions the CA's finding that his complaint was prematurely filed and that he failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement. Saso asserts his entitlement to disability benefits and other claims under the POEA-SEC.
Issue(s)
Whether Saso forfeited his right to claim compensation and benefits due to alleged failure to submit to post-employment medical examination within the prescribed period. Whether Saso is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether Saso is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses and sickness allowance. Whether Saso is entitled to partial disability benefits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It ruled that Saso did not forfeit his right to claim benefits because the employer failed to provide a timely post-employment medical examination, despite Saso's compliance with reporting requirements. However, Saso is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because his complaint was filed prematurely, before the lapse of the 120-day period and before any definitive assessment from the company-designated physician. The Court awarded Saso sickness allowance and partial disability benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the forfeiture of benefits due to failure to undergo post-employment medical examination: The Court found that Saso did not forfeit his right to claim benefits. The NLRC and CA erred in dismissing Saso's claim based solely on his alleged failure to submit to a post-employment medical examination within three days. Saso consistently alleged that he reported to 88 Aces on April 23, 2010, but was told to shoulder his medical expenses subject to reimbursement. This claim was supported by an acknowledgment receipt showing reimbursement for expenses incurred on April 23, 2010. The employer's claim of repeatedly summoning Saso for examination was unsubstantiated, and their written advice dated June 21, 2010, was issued beyond the mandatory 3-day period. The Court reiterated that the absence of a post-employment medical examination should not prejudice a seafarer's claim when the failure to comply was due to the employer's fault or refusal. Therefore, Saso cannot be considered to have forfeited his rights. On entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits: The Court held that Saso was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. His complaint was filed on August 3, 2010, which was only 105 days after his repatriation on April 20, 2010. The 120-day period had not yet lapsed, and the company-designated physician had not yet issued any declaration regarding his fitness or disability. While Saso obtained a report from an independent physician assessing him with permanent disability, this report was premature as a basis for a total and permanent disability claim. The Court emphasized that a seafarer's cause of action for total and permanent disability benefits arises only under specific circumstances, such as the lapse of the 120-day or 240-day period without a declaration, or a dispute in the assessment of disability after the company-designated physician has made a finding. Saso's situation did not meet these criteria at the time of filing his complaint; he was legally considered temporarily disabled. On entitlement to reimbursement of medical expenses and sickness allowance: The Court disallowed Saso's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to P25,857.00 for lack of receipts, noting that respondents had already reimbursed him P3,849.50. Regarding sickness allowance, Saso admitted receiving NT$51,200.00, equivalent to three months' salary, covering up to July 23, 2010. The Court found him entitled to sickness allowance for the period from July 24, 2010, to September 23, 2010 (when the company-designated physician issued a disability assessment), equivalent to two months' salary, amounting to NT$34,560.00. On entitlement to partial disability benefits: The Court found Saso entitled to partial disability benefits. Despite not being entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, his work-connected injury impaired his physical condition and earning capacity. The company-designated physician assessed his injury as Impediment Grade 13 (shortening of a lower extremity with joint lesion or disturbance of weight bearing). Under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, the disability allowance for Grade 13 is US$50,000.00 multiplied by 6.72%, resulting in an award of US$3,360.00 or its peso equivalent.
Main Doctrine
The absence of a post-employment medical examination does not automatically defeat a seafarer's right to claim compensation and benefits if the failure to undergo such examination was not due to the seafarer's fault but to the employer's inadvertence or refusal. However, entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits is contingent upon the lapse of the 120-day or 240-day period without a declaration from the company-designated physician, or other specific circumstances outlined in jurisprudence.