Malicdem v. Asia Bulk Transport Phils.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose Aspiras Malicdem (Malicdem) was hired by respondent Asia Bulk Transport Phils, Inc. (ABTPI) on June 1, 2011, for a three-month contract. During his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), it was noted he had a history of high blood pressure and hypertension, but he was declared fit to work. On board, he experienced blurred vision and headache, was seen by a doctor in Japan, and repatriated on October 16, 2011. A company-designated physician diagnosed him with glaucoma, stating it was not work-related. He underwent PEME again in December 2011 and was declared fit to work with maintenance medicines for hypertension. On December 21, 2011, he signed a new employment contract and embarked on MV Nord Liberty as Chief Engineer. He was repatriated on October 12, 2012, alleging exposure to psychological stress, unhealthy food, heat, and diesel fumes, which he claimed aggravated his hypertension and caused dizziness and blurred vision. He alleged he was not referred to a doctor at sea and saw one in Japan on the day of repatriation. Upon return, he claimed he was not given a referral for a post-employment medical examination and shouldered his own medical expenses. He was not rehired and remained unemployed. On March 12, 2014, a private doctor assessed him as disabled for any work. Malicdem filed a complaint for disability benefits, claiming his hypertension and glaucoma were work-related. The company-designated physician reiterated that glaucoma was not work-related. Respondents argued the conditions were not work-related and Malicdem failed to comply with the mandatory three-day reporting. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Malicdem's complaint for lack of merit but awarded financial assistance for humanitarian consideration. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision, finding no proof of work connection for glaucoma and failure to meet requirements for hypertension compensability. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Malicdem's petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The CA held that Malicdem failed to present documents for hypertension and substantial evidence for glaucoma, and that the company-designated physician's findings were against his claim. The Petition: Malicdem filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues on the CA's affirmation of the NLRC's decision, the effect of failure to comply with the three-day reportorial requirement, the application of the disputable presumption of work-relatedness, entitlement to total and permanent disability, and claims for sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the NLRC's decision regarding the failure to comply with the three-day reportorial requirement and the compensability of illnesses. Whether failure to comply with the mandatory three-day reportorial requirement under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC results in the forfeiture of disability claims. Whether the disputable presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC works in the seafarer's favor regarding the compensability of his illnesses. Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether petitioner is entitled to sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated December 17, 2015, and the Resolution dated May 13, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140137 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error: The Court held that Malicdem failed to comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days from repatriation as required by Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC. This failure, without justifiable cause, results in the forfeiture of his right to claim compensation and disability benefits. The Court emphasized that this reporting requirement is crucial for the company-designated physician to promptly assess if the illness is work-related. Even if the failure to comply with the reporting requirement were excused, Malicdem's petition would still fail because he did not present substantial evidence that his illnesses are compensable. On the issue of forfeiture due to failure to comply with the three-day reporting requirement: Jurisprudence consistently holds that non-compliance with this mandatory reporting requirement, without valid exceptions like incapacity to report or employer's refusal, is fatal to a seafarer's claim. On the issue of the disputable presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC: Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, both hypertension and glaucoma are not listed as occupational diseases. While Section 20(A)(4) creates a disputable presumption of work-relatedness for non-listed diseases, the seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that the work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. Malicdem's bare allegations regarding the exacerbation of his hypertension and his claims regarding glaucoma were unsubstantiated by competent medical history or records. The company-designated physician, Dr. Salvador, had consistently opined that Malicdem's glaucoma was not work-related. The Court also noted that Malicdem's repatriation occurred after his contract had expired, which weighs against claims of aggravation during employment. On the issue of entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits: Based on the failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement and the lack of substantial evidence proving the compensability of his illnesses, Malicdem is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court reiterated that while POEA-SEC provisions are liberally construed in favor of seafarers, this does not sanction awards in the face of evident failure to establish compensability and unjustified non-compliance with mandatory requirements. On the issues of sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees: As the primary claim for disability benefits was denied, the claims for sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees, which are ancillary to the disability claim, were also deemed unmeritorious. The Court found no further need to discuss these issues given the resolution of the main claim.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement for post-employment medical examination under the POEA-SEC results in the forfeiture of a seafarer's right to claim disability benefits, and even if this requirement is excused, the seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that the illness is work-related and compensable.