PRESCRIPTION OF PERIOD TO INSTITUTE CLAIM FOR DISABILITY IS RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF DISEMBARKATION FROM THE VESSEL

Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate

Prescription period for filing seafarer’s claims arising from contract is within three (3) years from the date the cause of action arises. It is well-settled that a seafarer’s cause of action arises upon his disembarkation from the vessel.

Thus, the SC held in the following case:

Zonio, Jr. vs. 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc.
G.R. No. 239052, October 16, 2019

Post-Employment Medical Examination; Post-Employment medical check-up is the proper basis to determine the seafarer’s illness, whether it was work-related, or its specific grading of disability; Having failed to present any evidence to defeat the presumption of work-relatedness, the prima facie case that the illness is work-related prevails; Doubt resolved in favor of labor; Work-relatedness; Compensability; Prescriptive period to file disability claims; Seafarer’s cause of action arises upon his disembarkation from the vessel; Single Entry Approach (SEnA); SEnA, being a pre-requisite to the filing of a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter, the date of filing with the SEnA is the date when claim was instituted

Facts:

Respondent 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. (88 Aces) is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of Filipino seafarers for and on behalf of its foreign principal Khalifa Algosaibi Diving & Marine Services Co. (Khalifa Algosaibi). Janet A. Jocson (Jocson) is the president/owner/manager of 88 Aces.

On February 4, 2010 (note: dates are very relevant in this case), Apolinario was hired as an “ordinary seaman” by 88 Aces to board the vessel MV Algosaibi 42. His contract was for a duration of six months. After passing the required pre-employment medical examination, Apolinario Z. Zonio (Apolinario) left Manila on February 26, 2010 and embarked MV Algosaibi 42 in Saudi Arabia.

After completing his six-month contract with 88 Aces in August 2010, Apolinario however was not repatriated as he directly entered into a new contract with 88 Aces’ foreign principal, Khalifa Algosaibi. His new contract with it lasted until April 2012.

Apolinario alleged that while on board MV Algosaibi 42 in December 2010, he suddenly experienced dizziness. As his condition did not improve, he was sent to As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia where he was found to have a high glucose and cholesterol. He posited that he was given medicine by the doctor and was advised to observe proper diet and avoid stress. After taking the doctor’s advice, his medical condition improved and he was able to perform his work well.

However, after two years, Apolinario alleged that his dizziness recurred, accompanied by the blurring of his vision. He returned to As Salama Hospital where he was diagnosed to have diabetes mellitus and dislipedemia.

On April 11, 2012, Apolinario was repatriated in Manila. He posited that he immediately reported to the office of 88 Aces to get his unpaid wages and for him to be referred to the company physician. However, since his repatriation was due to the completion of his six-month Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved employment contract, he was allegedly told by President Jocson that 88 Aces could not shoulder his medical expenses. He did not insist anymore and just continued taking the medicine given by the doctor in Saudi Arabia.

Apolinario’s illness recurred on August 2, 2013. He consulted Dr. Joseph Glenn Dimatatac, an internal medicine physician, and was informed that his illness was indeed diabetes mellitus. On March 17, 2015, he consulted Dr. Rufo Luna, the Municipal Health Officer of the Municipality of San Jose, who declared him to be physically unfit to continue work due to his hyperglycemia. Consequently, he demanded from 88 Aces, et al. the payment of his disability benefits, but to no avail.

On May 8, 2015, he filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter against 88 Aces, Jocson and Khalifa Algosaibi (collectively referred to as 88 Aces, et al.) for the payment of disability benefits, attorney’s fees, medical fees, sickness allowance and moral, exemplary and compensatory damages.

Apolinario argued that his illness is presumed as work-related. According to him, his stress was a factor in the development of his diabetes mellitus since he was exposed to frequent overtime, lack of sleep, and emotional/psychological stress for being away from his family. Moreover, he contended that his disability is permanent and total because he was already incapacitated to resume his sea duties for more than 240 days. He maintained that his cause of action was instituted within three years from his disembarkation from the vessel.

88 Aces, et al. on the other hand, argued that Apolinario finished his six-month POEA-approved employment contract in August 2010 without any medical issue whatsoever. They contended that since the filing of his Complaint was made five years after the completion of his contract in August 2010, his cause of action had already prescribed for not having been filed within the three-year prescriptive period.

Moreover, 88 Aces, et al claimed that contrary to Apolinario’s allegation, he actually failed to comply with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement. As such, he cannot be entitled to his money claims, moral, compensatory and exemplary damages.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor Apolinario and held that his cause of action has not prescribed yet.

The LA explained that under Section 18 of the POEA-approved employment contract, the seafarer’s contract with the employer is effective until the date of his arrival at the point of hire. The LA clarified that all claims arising from the contract should be made within three years from the date the cause of action arose. Since Apolinario’s arrival at the point of hire was April 11, 2012, he had until April 11, 2015 within which to instituted his action. Thus, he was able to institute his claim against respondents within the reglementary period when he filed his request for Single Entry Approach (SENA) at the NLRC in March 2015.

The LA further found that while on board, Apolinario was exposed to physical and psychological stress due to rush jobs, lack of sleep and homesickness. Inasmuch as stress can prompt an increase in the level of one’s blood sugar, the LA found nexus between his nature of work and his ailment diabetes mellitus.

The LA gave more weight to Apolinario’s allegation that he actually requested to undergo the required post-employment medical examination, but 88 Aces denied it on the ground that his repatriation was not for medical reasons, but due to the completion of his contract.

Aggrieved, 88 Aces, et al. elevated the case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

NLRC Ruling:

The NLRC rendered a Decision granting 88 Aces, et al.’s appeal.

The NLRC ratiocinated that the findings of Apolinario’s physicians cannot be accorded weight since their medical certificates were only issued on March 17, 2015 and June 15, 2015 – about three years or more from Aplinario’s repatriation on April 11, 2012.

The NLRC further held that Apolinario failed to establish that his illness was work-related and that he requested for a post-employment medical examination, his claim for disability benefits must be denied.

Thus, Apolinario filed a petition before the Court of Appeals (CA).

CA Ruling:

The CA affirmed the NLRC’s Decision and dismissed Apolinario’s petition.

The CA held that Apolinario’s repatriation was due to the completion of his contract and that he had no complaint whatsoever when he disembarked from the vessel. Moreover, the CA pointed out that he was no longer a subject of any POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) when he was found unfit to work. Not being covered by the contract, the CA denied his claim based thereon.

Lastly, the CA opined that Apolinario did not proffer any reason for his failure to undergo the required post-employment medical examination. Having failed to under the required medical test, the CA concluded that he cannot be entitled to disability benefits.

Hence, the instant petition before the Supreme Court (SC).

Issue/s:

Whether or not presumption of work-relatedness prevails upon failure of the company to present evidence of the conduct of post-employment medical check-up

Whether or not between the conflicting allegations that the seafarer demanded to undergo post employment medical examination and the denial of the employer the doubt is resolved in favor of the seafarer

Whether or not the cause of action arose from the time of disembarkation from the vessel

Whether or not the date of filing of the action in labor cases, for purposes of prescription is that with SEnA or the Labor Arbiter

SC Ruling:

The SC found merit in the petition and reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

The SC held that the 2000 POEA-SEC provides that any sickness resulting in disability because of an occupational disease listed under Section 32 (A) of the contract is deemed to be work-related, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. Section 20 (B) (4), on the other hand, declares that if the illness, such as diabetes mellitus, is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 (A), the ailment is disputably presumed as work-related.

The effect of the legal presumption in favor of the seafarer is to create a burden on the part of the employer to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case of work-relatedness. Absent any evidence from the employer to defeat the legal presumption, the prima facie case of work-relatedness prevails. The SC observed that Apolinario experienced recurring dizziness and was diagnosed at As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar Saudi Arabia to have contracted diabetes mellitus.

In fact, while on board the vessel, he was twice sent to said hospital for medical treatment. While the illness is not listed as one of the occupational diseases under Section 32 (A), the ailment is presumed work-related under Section 20 (B) (4) of the contract. 88 Aces, et al. are duty bound to overcome this presumption. However, other than the bare allegation, they failed to present a scintilla of proof to establish the lack of causal connection between his disease and his employment as a seafarer.

Had 88 Aces, et al. granted Apolinario’s request to undergo a post-employment medical check-up, they could have presented a medical finding to contradict the presumption of work-relatedness of his illness. The post-employment medical checkup could have been the proper basis to determine the seafarer’s illness, whether it was work-related, or its specific grading of disability. Having failed to present any evidence to defeat the presumption of work-relatedness, the prima facie case that it is work-related prevails.

Nonetheless, the presumption provided under Section 20 (B) (4) is only limited to the work-relatedness of an illness. It does not cover and extend to compensability. In this sense, there exists a fine line between the work-relatedness of an illness and the matter of compensability. The former concept merely relates to the assumption that the seafarer’s illness, albeit not listed as an occupational disease, may have been contracted during and in connection with one’s work, whereas compensability pertains to the entitlement to receive compensation and benefits upon a showing that a seafarer’s work conditions caused or at leastincreased the risk of contracting the disease.

It is medically accepted that stress has major effects on a person’s metabolic activity. The effects of stress on glucose metabolism are mediated by a variety of counter-regulatory hormones that are released in response to stress and that result in elevated blood glucose levels and decreased insulin action. In diabetes, because of a relative or absolute lack of insulin, the increase in blood glucose on account of stress cannot be adequately metabolized. Thus, stress is a potential contributor to chronic hyperglycemia in diabetes.

In this case, to prove that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, Apolinario showed that part of his duties as an Ordinary Seaman in MV Algosaibi 42 involved strenuous workload such as assist in the handling and operation of all deck gear such as topping, cradling and housing of booms; aid the carpenter in the repair work when requested; scale and chip paint, handle lines in the mooring of the ship, assist in the actual typing up and letting go of the vessel and stand as a lookout in the vessel. He was exposed to physical and psychological stress due to rush jobs, lack of sleep, heat stress, emergency works and homesickness for being away from his family. He was certainly exposed to various strain and stress—physical, mental and emotional.

The SC found the disease of Apolinario as compensable.

Further, the SC held that a seafarer-claimant is mandated a period of three working days within which he should submit himself to post-employment medical examination so that they company-designated physician can promptly arrive at a medical diagnosis. Due to the express mandate on the reportorial requirement, the failure of the seafarer to comply shall result in the forfeiture of his right to claim the above benefits.

The exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his repatriation; and (2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician.

Citing Apines vs. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., the SC held that the employer, and not the seafarer, has the burden to prove that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated doctor. Here, Apolinario was denied to undergo the post medical examination when he was told by 88 Aces that they could not shoulder his medical expenses since his repatriation was due to the completion of his six-month contract. Thus, he just continued taking the medicine given to him by the doctor in Saudi Arabia.

Between the two conflicting allegations from Apolinario and 88 Aces, et al., the SC resolved the doubt in favor of Apolinario. The factual backdrop of the case supports his allegation that he requested to be referred to a company designated physician with his repeated experience of dizziness and headaches, and need for medical attention while on board the vessel. He was hospitalized and even underwent thorough treatment thereat prior to his repatriation to Manila.

It is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seafarer’s disability. The company doctor has 120 or 240 days, depending on the circumstances, within which to complete the medical assessment of the seafarer to determine whether he is fit to work and to establish the degree of his disability; otherwise, the disability claim shall be granted.

Citing De Andres vs. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., the SC held that without the assessment of the company-designated physician, there was nothing for the seafarer’s own physician to contest.

Section 2 and 18 of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels, a contract between an employer and seafarer ceases upon its completion, when the seafarer signs off from the vessel and arrives at the point of hire. In this case, while Apolinario’s six-month contract may have ended as early as August 2010, he nonetheless was able to sign off from MV Algosaibi 42 and arrive at the point of hire only on April 11, 2012.

Section 30 of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides for the prescription period for filing claims arising from contract within three (3) years from the date the cause of action arises. It is well-settled that a seafarer’s cause of action arises upon his disembarkation from the vessel. As Apolinario’s disembarkation from Algosaibi 42 was on April 11, 2012, he had three years from the date, or until April 11, 2015, to make a claim for disability benefits.

Records show that Apolinario had requested for SENA before the NLRC as early as March 25, 2015. SENA is an administrative approach to provide an accessible, speedy, and inexpensive settlement of complaints arising from employer-employee relationship to prevent cases from ripening into full blown disputes. All labor and employment disputes undergo this 30-day mandatory conciliation-mediation process.

Notwithstanding, that Apolinario filed his Complaint before the Labor Arbiter only on May 8, 2015 is of no moment. SENA being a pre-requisite to the filing of a Complaint before the LA, the date when he should be deemed to have instituted his claim was when he instituted his Request for SENA on March 25, 2015. Considering that the expiration of his cause of action was on April 11, 2015, his claim was filed well within the 3-year prescriptive period.