Pacio v. Dohle-Philman Manning Agency
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Danilo L. Pacio (petitioner) was hired as an Able Seaman by Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. for its principal, Dohle (IOM) Limited. During his pre-employment medical examination (PEME), Pacio disclosed a pre-existing condition of hypertension since 2011. Despite this, he was certified fit for sea duty, but was required to sign an undertaking acknowledging his condition, agreeing to take medication, and declaring that any disabling sickness resulting from hypertension would be considered pre-existing and non-compensable. Pacio commenced employment and, approximately five months later, experienced high blood pressure and dizziness, leading to his referral to a medical facility in Romania where he was declared unfit for sea duty and repatriated. Procedural History: Upon repatriation, Pacio was examined by company-designated physicians who noted various medical findings, including hypertension and a transient ischemic attack, and stated the etiology of his hypertension was not work-related. The respondents covered his medical evaluation expenses. After a period of no contact, Pacio filed a Request for Assistance with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Conciliation failed, and Pacio subsequently filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees with the NLRC. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pacio, awarding disability benefits. The NLRC affirmed this decision. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's decision, finding that the labor tribunals disregarded pertinent provisions of the Labor Code, POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC), and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in granting the benefits, and that Pacio had not complied with the prescribed procedure for disability compensation. The Petition: Pacio seeks review of the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that he was declared Fit for Sea Duty during the PEME and that his condition worsened due to rigorous duties and an undermanned crew. He contends that his inability to perform his job for more than 120 days constitutes permanent disability. The respondents counter that Pacio acknowledged his pre-existing hypertension and signed an undertaking to that effect, and that his symptoms were transient and did not result in permanent disability. They also argue that Pacio failed to follow the proper procedure for claiming disability benefits, including the mandatory reporting to company-designated physicians and the referral to a third physician in case of conflicting medical assessments. Pacio filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising the issue of whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's decision awarding him permanent total disability benefits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in reversing the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC, which affirmed the findings of the ELA that the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Whether the petitioner complied with the procedural requirements for claiming disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC) and relevant labor laws. Whether the petitioner's hypertension and subsequent Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) were work-related or aggravated by his employment, thereby entitling him to permanent total disability benefits.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied. The Decision dated January 22, 2016, and Resolution dated July 10, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138514 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to permanent total disability benefits: The Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory process for a valid disability claim. The company-designated physician provided an assessment within the allotted time, contrary to the petitioner's allegations. The petitioner's attempt to use the company physician's report to claim unfitness for duty, while simultaneously questioning its completeness, was deemed contradictory. The Court noted that the petitioner did not fully cooperate, refused further tests, and spent almost a year before filing the complaint, which was considered a lack of good faith and contravened the POEA SEC. The Court reiterated that the seafarer must present substantial evidence to prove that his work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the illness or aggravating a pre-existing condition. The petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between his work and his alleged disability, especially given his admitted pre-existing hypertension. The Court found that the CA did not err in reversing the factual findings of the LA and NLRC. The CA correctly pointed out the disregard of the POEA SEC and labor laws by the lower tribunals. The Court reiterated its limited scope of review in petitions for certiorari but acknowledged the exception where factual findings of administrative agencies contradict those of the CA, necessitating a review of the evidence. Based on the evidence, the Court found in favor of the respondents, upholding the CA's decision. On compliance with procedural requirements: The Court emphasized that in the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the POEA SEC and relevant labor laws govern disability claims. Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA SEC mandates that upon sign-off, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance until declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability is assessed by the company-designated physician, not exceeding 120 days. The seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of return. Failure to comply results in forfeiture of rights. The Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with this procedure, particularly by not immediately reporting and by not informing the respondents about his consultation with his own physician and the conflicting findings. The Court highlighted that when there is a disparity in medical findings between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's physician, the POEA SEC provides for the referral to a third physician, whose decision shall be final and binding. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee. In this case, the petitioner did not avail of this remedy; he immediately filed a complaint without informing the respondents of his physician's contrary findings. This omission prevented the parties from addressing the conflicting assessments and was considered prejudicial to the petitioner, further weakening his claim. The Court cited Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr., stating that in the absence of a third and binding opinion, the company-designated doctor's certification prevails. On the nature of the illness and work-relatedness: The medical report from the company-designated physician stated that the etiology of hypertension was multifactorial and not work-related, listing generic predisposition, poor lifestyle, and other factors as causes. While a pre-existing condition does not automatically bar disability claims, the claimant must prove that it was aggravated by the employment. The petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting hypertension or aggravated his pre-existing condition. His claim of paralysis was not substantiated by the medical findings, which focused on hypertension and transient symptoms. The Court found his allegations of rigorous duty and undermanned crew to be bare and self-serving without supporting evidence.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer claiming permanent total disability benefits must strictly comply with the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC), including timely reporting to the company-designated physician and, in case of conflicting medical assessments, pursuing the referral to a third physician. Failure to adhere to these procedures, coupled with a lack of substantial evidence proving the work-relatedness or aggravation of a pre-existing condition, warrants the denial of disability claims.