Seafarer worked as an Oiler when he experienced chest pains and shortness of breath. Before he can even report his medical condition to the Captain, the latter informed him that he would be sent home.  Upon repatriation, seafarer was advised that he will be transferred to another ship to finish his contract and await his next deployment.   When seafarer was to be re-deployed after almost two months, he was declared unfit in his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) due to Hypertension, T/C Ischemic Heart for Work-Up and Possible Angiography.

Seafarer then underwent examination with the company-designated physician (CDP) and was assessed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease to rule out Atherosclerotic Heart Disease.  While under treatment, seafarer filed a case with the voluntary arbitrators of the NCMB for disability benefits.  Seafarer argued that his illness is work-related.  The company countered that the case was prematurely filed since there was yet no definite medical basis to support seafarer's claim for benefits given that he was still advised by the CDP to undergo further tests.

The arbitrators held that seafarer’s illness is work-related and awarded him disability benefits.  The Court of Appeals found the seafarer not entitled to disability benefits as the claim was premature because he had yet to comply with the recommendation of the CDP to undergo further medical tests.  

The Supreme Court ruled that seafarer is not entitled to disability benefits.

Seafarer not repatriated due to medical reasons

Seafarer argued that the company refused to provide him a post-employment medical examination which resulted to a lack of proper medical assessment that renders him totally and permanently disabled by operation of law.

The Court dismissed this argument and noted that the seafarer was not repatriated for medical reasons.  It is undisputed that seafarer did not have the chance to report his chest pains and shortness of breath to the Captain because when he was about to do this, the Captain told him that he will be sent home as per company's orders. In fact, he was not the only seafarer who was repatriated during that time as he had two other companions who were also repatriated for the purpose of transferring to another vessel. When seafarer reported to the company upon repatriation, he was told that he will be transferred to another ship to enable him to finish his contract. Clearly, seafarer's disembarkation was not due to medical grounds.

When seafarer alleged that he asked for a post-employment medical examination but the same was denied by the company, it was necessary for him to prove such allegation.  He failed in this regard.

It was noted that when seafarer was declared unfit for sea duty in the PEME, the company immediately referred him to the CDP for medical examination notwithstanding the lapse of almost two months from the time of his disembarkation and despite the possibility that seafarer's illness is no longer work-related considering the said time gap. Such conduct of the company is inconsistent with seafarer's claim that it outrightly denied seafarer's request for a post-employment medical examination if he indeed requested for one when he arrived

The claim was premature

The further medical tests and work-up recommended by the CDP could have been the proper procedure to determine the seafarer's illness was work-related and its degree of disability.  However, instead of submitting himself to further medical evaluation, seafarer filed a claim for disability benefits.

To recall, the company designated physicians recommended more tests on seafarer to ascertain the true state of his health and to determine whether his illness was work-related. However, instead of complying with the CDP's recommendations and before the lapse of the 120-day period, seafarer took advantage of the PEME report declaring him unfit and hastily filed an action for disability benefits.

The Court ruled that the aim of the PEME conducted was to determine the fitness for sea duty prior to seafarer's second deployment. It does not constitute the disability rating required by law for purposes of claiming disability benefits.

As such, when the complaint for disability benefits was filed, seafarer's cause of action had not yet accrued because at that time, he is not yet entitled to such benefits because a final medical assessment within 120/240 days was not yet issued by the CDP.

Work-relation was not established

The Court held that time and again, a sickness, to be compensable, must be proven to be work-related or at least work-aggravated. The grant of the benefits under the POEA-SEC is premised on the seafarer's compliance with the requisites provided therein, coupled with proof that the illness is in fact work-related.

Here, the seafarer failed to establish the work relation of his illness. He failed to show that the same existed during the term of his employment given that he refused to heed the CDP's recommendation of further medical evaluation and considering the lapse of time between his disembarkation and his PEME.

In the absence of a competent diagnosis and substantial evidence, seafarer's claim for disability benefits cannot stand as the award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions and conjectures.

S.A. vs. Goldroute Maritime, Inc., G.R. No. 254186, First Division, Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, ponente

By:  Ruben Del Rosario, President, Del Rosario Pandiphil Inc., 19 August 2024 (Issue 2024/04)