Amores v. Goldroute Maritime
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Solito C. Amores, Jr. was employed by respondent Goldroute Maritime Inc. as an oiler on board the vessel "Kanoura" for a nine-month period. He was declared fit for sea duty upon pre-employment medical examination. During his contract, he experienced chest pains and shortness of breath and was repatriated to the Philippines. Upon repatriation, he reported to the respondent's office and was told to wait for reassignment, but was also advised to see his own doctor for his intermittent chest pains. He consulted a private physician who prescribed medication and recommended further tests. Subsequently, during a pre-employment medical examination for a potential new deployment, the company-designated physician found him to be suffering from Hypertension, Controlled, T/C Ischemic Heart for Work-Up and Possible Angiography, and declared him unfit for sea duty. Further examination by a company-designated cardiologist indicated Hypertensive cardiovascular disease to rule out Atherosclerotic Heart Disease, with a recommendation for a CT Angiogram. Procedural History: Following the findings of unfitness for sea duty and the recommendation for further tests, petitioner requested a grievance meeting, which failed to result in a settlement. The dispute was then submitted for voluntary arbitration. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) ruled in favor of petitioner, awarding him total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees. Respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the PVA's decision, finding petitioner not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits but awarding sickness allowance from the date of repatriation until the filing of the claim. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that respondent's failure to refer him for a post-employment medical examination upon repatriation, despite his request, entitles him to total and permanent disability benefits by operation of law. He contends that his claim was not premature, as the 120/240-day rule does not apply when the seafarer is not referred for a post-employment medical examination. Petitioner also argues that even if the medical report was interim, his condition was expected to persist, and the company-designated physician's finding of unfitness binds the respondent. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the factual findings of the PVA and the CA were conflicting and proceeded to review the factual issues. The Court ultimately denied the petition, finding that petitioner was not medically repatriated, failed to prove he requested a post-employment medical examination upon arrival, and that his claim for total and permanent disability benefits was premature as he did not submit to further recommended medical evaluations to determine the nature and extent of his condition.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits was premature. Whether petitioner's illness is work-related. Whether respondent is liable for attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits: The Court ruled in the negative. Petitioner failed to establish that he was repatriated for medical reasons or that he requested a post-employment medical examination upon repatriation, which respondent allegedly denied. The evidence showed that petitioner's disembarkation was not due to medical grounds, and his claim of requesting a post-employment medical examination was not substantiated against respondent's denial. Furthermore, respondent's subsequent referral of petitioner to a company-designated cardiologist after the PEME finding of unfitness contradicted petitioner's claim of outright denial of his request. On the prematurity of the claim: The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits was premature. Petitioner did not complete the further medical tests recommended by the company-designated physicians, including a CT Angiogram, to ascertain the true state of his health and determine if his illness was work-related. Instead of submitting to further evaluation, he filed a claim for disability benefits. The December 15, 2015 medical report by Dr. Guzman, declaring petitioner unfit for sea duty, was considered a mere interim assessment for re-deployment purposes and not a final disability rating required for claiming benefits. Petitioner's refusal to undergo further medical evaluation was a contravention of his employment contract, barring his claim. On the work-relatedness of the illness: The Court found the record bereft of evidence to establish the work-connection of petitioner's disease. There was no record of the alleged illness in the ship's logbook, nor was petitioner repatriated for medical reasons. The Court reiterated that for an illness to be compensable, it must be proven to be work-related or work-aggravated, requiring a causal link between working conditions and the illness. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden of proof, especially considering his refusal to undergo further medical evaluation and the time lapse between his disembarkation and the PEME. On attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that petitioner was not entitled to attorney's fees. This was because respondent was within its rights to deny petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits due to the premature filing of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's claim for total and permanent disability benefits is premature if filed before a final disability assessment is made by the company-designated physician, especially when the seafarer fails to complete recommended further medical examinations and the repatriation was not for medical reasons.