SEAFARER’S ILLNESS THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN POEA-SEC THAT CAN FALL UNDER THE CATEGORIES OF LISTED ILLNESSES CAN BE WORK-RELATED

Seafarer’s illness that is not specifically listed under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC that can fall under the categories listed diseases can be considered work-related. A non-listed ailment that is an incident of a listed occupational disease is enough basis for compensation.

Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., et al. vs. Quijano
G.R. No. 234346, August 14, 2019

Absence of Post-employment examination; Seafarer’s claim that his request for medical examination and treatment was rejected against the company’s bare denial of the same is entitled to more weight; The absence of a post-employment medical examination will not defeat the seafarer’s claim when the failure to subject to this requirement was not due to his fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of his employer; A Contract of Employment commences only when the seafarer departs and not on the date of the contract; Illnesses that are not specifically listed under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC that can fall under the categories listed diseases can be considered work-related; A non-listed ailment that is an incident of a listed occupational disease is enough basis for compensation; Belated Certification submitted before the Court of Appeals can be considered in resolving the case

Facts:

On July 11, 2013, Quijano was hired as Cook by petitioner Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., for its principal Marlow Navigation Netherlands B.V., on board the vessel M/V Katharina Schepers, for a period of six (6) months (collectively referred to as Marlow Navigation, et al.). After undergoing the required pre-employment medical examination where Quijano was declared fit for sea duty by the company designated physician, the former boarded the vessel on August 18, 2013.

On January 30, 2014, Quijano was signed off from the vessel purportedly due to completion of his employment contract. On February 3, 2014, he reported at Marlow Navigation, et al.’s office and was paid the  balance of his final wages for the period January 1 to 30, 2014, and underwent interview for de-briefing purposes.

Thereafter, Quijano was hired anew for the same position, this time, under a 10-month Contract of Employment dated March 5, 2014. However, his employment did not materialize due to his confinement at the East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC) on March 18, 2014, where his independent physician diagnosed him to be suffering from liver abscess, cholecystitis with cholelithiasis, diabetes mellitus, type II, and panophthalmitis, right.

Claiming that his illnesses were acquired during his last employment and that Marlow Navigation, et al. refused to grant his request for medical assistance, Quijano filed against the latter a complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance, medical reimbursement, damages, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to the IBF-AMOSUP IMEC/TCCC Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), of which he was a  member, before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA).

Quijano alleged that due to hostile working conditions on board M/V Katharina Schepers, he experienced body weakness, easy fatigability, poor eyesight, and severe low back pain, which he reported to the Chief Officer and Captain. He was relieved from his post with his contract cut short to 5 ½ months.

Quijano added that upon repatriation, he attempted to report for post-employment medical examination and treatment but was unjustly refused, prompting him to seek medical attention at his own expense at the EAMC, where he was diagnosed by his independent physician, Dr. Tito Garrido (Dr. Garrido), to have “TIC Liver Pathology with Possible Gallbladder Disease.”

Quijano was brought again to EAMC due to fever and chills and confined thereat, after undergoing ultrasound guided percutaneous liver abscess drain, among others. Considering that his illnesses rendered him incapable of resuming work that resulted in his total and permanent disability, he filed the complaint.

For their part, Marlow Navigation, et al. denied Quijano’s claims contending that the latter disembarked due to expiration of his employment contract and that he was able to finish the same without any issue, accident or illness while on board the vessel. They likewise denied that Quijano requested for medical assistance, contending that the latter did not disclose his alleged medical condition when he accomplished the de-briefing questionnaire and even accepted payment of his remaining wages and benefits without complain. Lastly, they argued that Quijano did not present himself for a post-employment medical examination before the company-designated physician as mandated under the POEA-SEC, and hence, not entitled to claim disability benefits.

PVA Ruling:

The PVA found Quijano entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, and accordingly, ordered Marlow Navigation, et al. to solidarily pay him US$127,932.00 in accordance with the CBA, and 10% attorney’s fees.

The PVA gave more credence to Quijano’s claim that the latter was denied medical assistance, pointing out that his 6-month contract was pre-terminated without any reason, and that after his repatriation when he reported for post-employment medical examination, he was merely paid his remaining wage and not referred to a  company-designated physician.

Furthermore, it pointed out that since the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a definite assessment of Quijano’s fitness to work or degree of disability within the 120/240-day period, the latter’s disability was deemed total and permanent by operation of law.

Undaunted, Marlow Navigation, et al. filed a petition for review before the CA asserting that Quijano was not medically repatriated and that he failed to comply with the mandated post-employment medical examination in claiming disability benefits. In the meantime, a writ of execution was issued constraining Marlow Navigation, et al. to deposit the judgment award of US$127,932.00 plus 10% attorney’s fees equivalent to P6,631,231.20 in favor of Quijano before the NCMB.

CA Ruling:

The CA agreed with the findings of the PVA that Quijano was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, ruling that Quijano cannot be faulted in consulting an independent physician for his post-employment medical examination considering that Marlow Navigation, et al. abandoned him when they denied his request for medical assistance.

It held that Marlow Navigation, et al.’s failure to explain the pre-termination of respondent’s contract supports the claim that he was medically repatriated, and that there was substantial evidence to show that Quijano was suffering from a work-related illness. Lastly, it ruled that since respondent’s position as Cook was supervisory in nature, he was correctly classified as a junior officer and not a mere rating in determining his disability compensation under the CBA.

Marlow Navigation, et al.’s motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the petition before the SC.

Issue/s:

Whether or not between the seafarer’s claim that his request for medical examination and treatment was rejected and the company’s bare denial of the same, the former’s positive assertion is entitled to more weight

Whether or not the absence of a post-employment medical examination will defeat the seafarer’s claim when the failure to subject to this requirement was not due to his fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of his employer

Whether or not a Contract of Employment commences only when the seafarer departs and not on the date of the contract

Whether or not illnesses that are not specifically listed under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC can fall under the categories listed diseases can be considered work-related

Whether or not that fact that a non-listed ailment is an incident of a listed occupational disease is enough basis for compensation

Whether or not a non-listed ailment is included in the disputable presumption under Section 20 (A) (4) 2010 POEA-SEC that a non-listed illness is work-related, and the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption

Whether or not the belated Certification submitted before the Court of Appeals can be considered in resolving the case

SC Ruling:

The SC found the petition partly meritorious.

That Quijano was not able to report for post-employment medical examination, and hence, disqualified from claiming disability benefits, is belied by the records which show that on February 3, 2014, or within the mandated three (3)-day period from repatriation, he reported to Marlow Navigation, et al.’s office not primarily for de-briefing purposes but to actually request for medical assistance and treatment from the company-designated physician which, however, was rejected causing him to seek treatment from other doctors.

In particular, Quijano claimed to have reported the following day after his repatriation, or on January 31, 2014, and on February 3, 2014 for post-employment medical examination but was refused by Marlow Navigation, et al. at both instances.

For this reason, on February 3, 2014, Quijano proceeded to EAMC where he was seen by Dr. Garrido in view of his right upper quadrant pain (abdominal pain) that lasted for 2-3 days and was found with “positive right upper quadrant (abdomen) tenderness and fever.” He was diagnosed with “TIC Liver Pathology with possible Gallbladder Disease” and was prescribed medication with a further advise to undergo ultrasound of the Hepatobiliary Tract including the pancreas.

Logically, Quijano’s resort to an independent physician to check on his condition on February 3, 2014 was most likely due to the company’s rejection of his plea for medical assistance and treatment. Besides, under the rules on evidence, as between Quijano ‘s claim that his request for medical examination and treatment was rejected and Marlow Navigation, et al.’s bare denial of the same, the former’s positive assertion is generally entitled to more weight.

In lnterorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. Remo, the Court ruled that “the absence of a  post-employment medical examination cannot be used to defeat respondent’s claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to the seafarer’s fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of [his employers ].”

In the same vein, it is untrue that Quijano was repatriated due to expiration of contract. A perusal of the records would show that Quijano’s Contract of Employment dated July 11, 2013 commenced only when he departed for M/V Katharina Schepers on August 18, 2013, in accordance with Section 2 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Since Quijano’s contract of service was for a period of six (6) months, reckoned from his actual departure from the point of hire or until February 18, 2014, his sign-off from the vessel on January 30, 2014 was clearly short of the said contracted period.

Accordingly, absent any justification for the contract’s pre-termination, the SC did not give credence to Marlow Navigation, et al.’s claim that Quijano was repatriated due to expiration or completion of his employment contract.

With respect to the work-relatedness of Quijano’s diagnosed illnesses, his liver abscess, cholecystitis with cholelithiasis, and panophthalmitis, while not specifically listed as such under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC, these nonetheless fall under the categories “abdomen” and “eyes.” On the other hand, the fact that Quijano was also diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus is of no moment since the incidence of a listed occupational disease, whether or not associated with a non-listed ailment, is enough basis for compensation.

Besides, Section 20 (A) (4) thereof explicitly establishes a disputable presumption that a non-listed illness is work-related, and the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption, which Marlow Navigation, et al. failed to discharge. At this juncture, it bears to stress that factual findings of the PVA, which were affirmed by the CA, are binding and will not be disturbed, absent any showing that they were made arbitrarily or were unsupported by substantial evidence. Since Marlow Navigation, et al. failed to show any semblance of arbitrariness or that the PVA’s and CA’s rulings were not supported by substantial evidence, the Court is inclined to uphold the same.

However, even if Quijano is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits by operation of law, the Court deems it proper to adjust the amount awarded in his favor. A perusal of the CBA discloses that the scale of compensation for disability is classified into three (3) groups, namely, ratings, junior officers, and senior officers, with the last group to compose of Master, Chief Officer, Chief Engineer, and 2nd Engineer. No similar compositions were made with respect to the remaining two (2) classifications.

Other than Quijano’s bare allegation that his position is a junior officer, no evidence was presented to substantiate the same. On the other hand, Marlow Navigation, et al. submitted a Certification dated April 7, 2016, signed by the legal officer of the Associate Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines, a party to the subject CBA, stating that the position/rank of a  Chief Cook is considered “Rating” for the vessel M/V Katharina Schepers.

Even if the said certification was belatedly submitted before the CA, technical rules should not prevent courts from exercising their duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the parties. Thus, the documentary evidence submitted by Marlow Navigation, et al. should have been given weight and credence by the CA.