Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ta: COPY
-·~
., '-' 1°<.7.,
• ~ ·~ ', :. { ) \/
.L II AN
,. "" I
DEC O6 2017
l\epublic of tbe ~bilippines
~upreme <teourt
;!Ffilan ila
THIRD DIVISION
x-~-~-~--~~~~~~~~--~-~--~--~-~-~-~-x
DECISION
LEONEN,J.:
Decision2 and July 18, 4013 Re~oh1tion 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 124546 h~ reversed ~nd set aside.
Id. at 20-30, The Decision wµs penn~~d by Aii~Qciatt'l Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred
in by Associate Jt1stices !'(osalin~la Asuncion-Vicente and Agnes Reyes-Carpio of the Eighth Division,
Comt of Appeals, Manila. · ·
Id. at 31-32. The Resolµtion was penned by Msociate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and
concurred in by Associate JusHcei:; :Rosalinda Asuncion-Victinte and Agnes Reyes-Cru'Pio of the Eighth
Division, Court of Appef!.ls, Manila.
No copy imnexed to the P(ltition or to any of the pl~adings submitted,
No copy annexed to the Petition or to any of the pleadings submitted.
Q
No copy annexeG to the Petition or to any of the pleadings submitted.
Id. at 33-44.
Id. at 20-21.
9
Id. at 111, Memorandum for the Respondents.
10
Id. at 21. ~
II Id.
i2 Id.
13
Id. at 94, Memorandum for the Petitioner.
14
Jct. at 111, Memorandum for the Respondent.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 208314
Two (2) months after he filed his Complaint, on December 20, 2010,
Manansala's own doctor, Dr. Amado San Luis (Dr. San Luis), issued a
medical opinion stating that Manansala must be considered permanently
disabled:
Medipal Opinion
15
Id. at 94.
16
Id. at 21.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 111.
19
Id. at 26.
20
Id. at 21.
21
Id. at 11 l.
22
Id. at 112, Memorandum for the Respondents.
23
Id, at 42.
.. 24
Id. at 9~, Memorandum for the Petitioner.
25
Id. at 22.
26
Id. at 26.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 208314
On April 20, 2011, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding that
Manansala was suffering from pre,·existing, rather than work-related,
27
ailments. Therefore, he was not entitled to disability bene.fits.
He is not.
)I Id.
32
Jd, at 97-)18, Memorandum for the Ptwitit,rwr.
33
Miiiares v. lv'ational {,abr1r Relatio11s Cortm1/:,sic,11, •D·~ Phil. .%24, 538 (2002) (Pi;'r. J. Kapunan, Special
First Division].
34
LABOR CODF, art. 20,
Decision 5 G.R. No. 208314
"as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment for overseas work" 35
and is "deemed incorporated in [seafarer] employment contract[s]." 36
Definition of Tenns:
The benefits that the employer must pay "when the seafarer suffe1>s
work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract" 40 are outlined
41
in Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC.
35
Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 588 Phil. 895, 909 (2008) [Per. J. Brion, Second
Division].
J
36
Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, 743 Phil. 371, 385 (2014) [Per. J. Brion, Second Division].
37
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000.
38
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000, sec. 20(8).
39
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000, Definition of Terms.
40
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000, sec. 20(B).
41
Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board
the vessel;
2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the
employer shall be liable for thtJ full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and
hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or
to be repatriated.
However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from
said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is
declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the comp&ny-
designated physician.
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel fur medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness
allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the 'degree of
permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in ;10
case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post·employment medical
examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his
return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice
to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to
comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his fo1feiture of the right
to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may bti
agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall
be final and binding on both parties.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 208314
II
4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work
related.
J
5. Upon sign-off of the seafarer from the vessel for medical treatment, the employer shall
bear the full cost ofrepatriation in the event the seafarer is declared (I) fit for repatriation
or (2) fit to work but the employer is unable to find employment for the seafarer on board
his former vessel or another vessel for the employer despite earnest efforts.
6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits
enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an
illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable
at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
42
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000, sec. 32 provides:
Section 32. SCHEDULE OF DISABILITY OR IMPEDIMENT FOR INJURIES SUFFERED AND
DISEASES INCLUDING OCCUPATIONAL DlSEASES OR ILLNESS CONTRACTED.
(1) The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
(2) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's
exposure to the described risks;
(3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and
under such other factors necessary to contract it;
(4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
6. Infection (Brucellosis)
j
7. Ionizing radiation disease, inflammation, ulceration or malignant disease of skin or subcutaneoµs
tissues of the bones or leukemia, or anemia of the aplastic type due to X~rays, ionizing particle,
radium or radioactive substauces.
8. Poisoning and its sequelae caused by:
(a) Ammonia
(b) Arsenic or its toxic compound
(c) Benzene or its toxic homologues, nitro and aminotoxic derivatives of benzene or its
homologue
(d) Beryllium or its toxic compounds
(e) Brass, zinc or nickel
(t) Carbon dioxide
(g) Carbon bisulfide
(h) Carbon monoxide
(i) Chlorine
G) Chrome of its toxic compounds
(k) Dinitrophenol or its homologue
(l) Halogen derivatives of hydrocarbon of the aliphatic series
(m) Lead or its toxic compounds
(n) Manganese or its toxic compounds
(o) Mercury or its to~ic compounds
(p) Nitrous fumes
(q) Phosgenc
(r) Phosphorous or its toxic compounds
(s) Sulfur dioxide
9. Diseases Caused by abnormalities in temperature and humidity
(a) Heat stroke/cramps/exhaustion
(b) Chilblain/frostbite/fr~ezing
(c) Immersion foot/general hypothermia
10. Vascular disturbance in the upper extremities due to continuous vibration from pneumatic tools or
power drills, riveting machines or hammers.
11. Cardio-Vascular Diseases
Common sense dictates that an illness could not possibly have been
"contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks" 47 if
it has been existing before the seafarer's services are engaged. Still, pre-
existing illnesses may be aggravated by the seafarer's working conditions.
To the extent that any such aggravation is brought about by the work of the
seafarer, compensability ensues:
47
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000, sec. 32-A. /)
48
Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurei, 707 Phil. 210, 225 (2013) [Per. J. Mendoza, Third Division]. (
49
678 Phil. 938 (2011) [Per. J. Mendoza, Third Division]. -
50
Id. at 946-947.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 208314
III
~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-.
51
Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, 743 Phil. 371, 387-388 (2014) [Per. J. Brion, Second Division].
Decision 10 G.R. No. 208314
IV
52
J
Rep.Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, sec. 23(c) provides:
Section 23. Role of Government Agencies. -- The following government agencies shall perform the
following to promote the welfare and protect the rights of migrant workers and, as far as applicable, all
overseas Filipinos:
(c) Department of Health. - The Department of Health (DOH) shall regulate the activities and
operations of all clinics which conduct medical, physical, optical, dental, psychological and other
similar examinations, hereinafter referred to as health examinations, on Filipino migrant workers as
requirement for their overseas employment. Pursuant to this, the DOH shall ensure that:
(c. I) The fees for the health examinations are regulated, regularly monitored and duly published to
ensure that the said fees are reasonable and not exorbitant;
(c.2) The Filipino migrant worker shall only be required to undergo health examinations when there is
reasonable certainty that he or she will be hired and deployed to the jobsite and only those health
examinations which are absolutely necessary for the type of job applied for or those specifically
required by the foreign employer shall be conducted;
(c.3) No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a monopoly of exclusively conducting health
examinations on migrant workers for certain receiving countries;
(c.4) Every Filipino migrant worker shall have the freedom to choose any of the DOH-accredited or
DOH-operated clinics that will conduct his/her health examinations and that his or her rights as a
patient are respected. The decking practice, which requires an overseas Filipino worker to go first to
an office for registration and then farmed out to a medical clinic located elsewhere, shall not be
allowed;
(c.5) Within a period of three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act, all DOH regional and/or
provincial hospitals shall establish and operate clinics that can serve the health examination
requirements of Filipino migrant workers to provide them easy access to such clinics all over the
country and lessen their transportation and lodging expenses; and
(c.6) All DOH-accredited medical clinics, including the DOH-operated clinics, conducting health
examinations for Filipino migrant workers shall observe the same standard operating procedures and
shall comply with internationally-accepted standards in their operations to conform with the
requirements ofreceiving countries or of foreign employers/principals.
Any foreign employer who does not honor the results of valid health examinations conducted by a
DOH-accredited or DOH-operated clinic shall be temporarily disqualified from participating in the
overseas employment program, pursuant to POEA rules and regulations.
In case an overseas Filipino worker is found to be not medically fit upon his/her immediate arrival in
the country of destination, the medical clinic that conducted the health examination/s of such overseas
Filipino worker shall pay for his or her repatriation back to the Philippines and the cost of deployment
of such worker.
Any DOH-accredited clinic which violates any provision of this section shall, in addition to any other
liability it may have inc\med, suffer the penalty of revocation of its DOH accreditation.
Any government official or employee who violates any provision of this subsection shall be removed
or dismissed from service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years.
Such penalty is without prejudice to any other liability which he c:.r she may have incurred under
existing Jaws, rules or regulations.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 208314
. ~
oldl above)
Audiometry ../ ./ ./
Blood Uric Acid x -
x ./
Chest X-ray ./ ./ ../
Color Perception ./
../ ../
Test
Complete Blood ../
Count and Blood ../ ../
Typing
Complete Physical ./
Examination and ./ ./
Medical History
Dental Examination cl ./ ../
../=-
53
DOH Admin Order No. 2007-0025, VI provides:
VI. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
I
B.OnPEME
1. The PEME shall be administered on the following: Seafarers, including cadets, trainees, regular
employees of local shipping lines, contractual employees of foreign-owned shipping companies,
and pre-licensure examinees.
2. The PEME to be conducted shall, among others, undertake and consider the following procedures
and criteria, accordingly:
a.) Past medical history of the examinee shall be taken. When necessary, previous medical
records of each seafarer candidate/serving seafarer shall be reviewed.
b.) The cunent Joint National Committee Recommendation on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure shall be used for reference. Minimum
PEME test requirements for seafarers shall follow the Minimum PEME Test
Requirements posted at the DOH website .www.d~h.gov.ph
c.) Distant and near vision, including color perception test (Ishihara Plates), shall fonn part
of the initial and periodic PEME requirements. Test for primary colors shall be
considered in case of defective Ishihara result. It shall not impair the seafarer's capability
to work provided it is cleared by an accredited eye specialist or low vision specialist.
Results of visual acuity shall be expressed in both decimal and Snellen's notation
provided in the format of the PEME Fitness Certification for Seafarers posted at the DOH
website www.doh.gov.ph
d.) Audiometric exam shall form part of the initial and regular PEME requirements. Hearing
ai;:uity shall be measured from 500 Hz to 8000 Hz.
e.) Full clinical notes and results oft'le laboratory, x-ray, ECG, and other examinations shall
be kept along with the form describing the examinee's previous medical history duly
signed by the examinee as stated in the Instructions to Accredited Medical Clinics posted
at the DOH website www.dop.gQ.v.ph
f.) Physical Capabilities required for entry-level seafarers shall be based on shipboard task,
function, event or condition as mentioned under Job Requirements and Fitness Standards
posted at the DOH website www.doh.gov.p'1
g.) In case of crew members of ships in coastal trade, offshore supply vessels, tugboats and
barges, the international fitness standard and health requirement of these guidelines may
be modified by national maritime authorities, and restricted service health certificates
may be issued to the crew members. Nevertheless, the safety of the vessel at sea must be
maintained, seafarers' duties must be performed safely, and their health must be
safeguarded.
54
DOH Admin Order No. 2007-0025, Vl(B)(2)(b).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 208314
ECG ./ x ,/
Fasting Blood
Sugar
x x ./
Hepatitis B ,/ ./ ./
Screening
HIV OPTIONAL
Psychometric ./
./ ,/
examinations
Routine Stool ./ ./ ./
./ ./ ./
Routine Urinalysis
RPR ./ ,/ ../
Total cholesterol x -x
./
Triglyceride x x ./
Visual Acuity ./ ./ ./
a.) Fit for Sea Duty - The seafarer is assessed as able to perfom1
safely the duties of his position aboard a ship in the absence of
medical care, without danger to his health or to the safety of
the vessel, crew and passengers.
b.) Unfit for Sea Duty - The seafarer is assessed to be not fit for
sea duty.
I
55
DOH Admin Order No. 2007-0025, VI (C).
~6 DOH Administrative Order No. 2007-0025, VI (C).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 208314
57
Estate of Ortega v. Court ofAppeals, 576 Phil. 601, 620 (2008) [Per. J. Tinga, Second Division].
58
DOH Administrative Order No. 2007-0025, VI (C).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 208314
59
60
MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION, HARRISON'S PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 1616 (l 91h ed.).
Id.
I
6t Id.
62 ld.
63 Jd.
64
Id.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 208314
65
P. BLOOMFIELD, A. BRADBURY, N.R. GRUBB & D.E. NEWBY, Cardiovascular Disease, DAVIDSON'S
PRrNCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE 551 (20th ed.).
f
66 Id.
67 Id.
08
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-2000, sec. 32-A (20).
Decision 16 G.R. No. 208314
-~. , ....
I Diabetes
I Normal Pre-diabetes
I I Mellitus
I
t
FPG <5.6 mmol/L 5.6-6.9 mmol/L ?:.7.0 mmol/L
!
!
2-hPG <7.8 mmol/L 7.8-11.0 mmol/L ?:.11.1 mmol/L
HbAlC <5.6% 5.7-6.4% ?:.6.5% I
70
111
MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION, HARRISON'S PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 2399 (19 ed.).
B.M. FRIE)l & M. FISHER, Diabetes Mellitus, DAVIDSON'S PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE 808
y
(201hed.).
71
Id.at818.
72
Id.
73 Id.
74
Id. at 829 lists the complications of diabete~. as follows:
A. Microvascular I nE;uropathic
l. Retinopathy, Cataract
- Impaired vision
2. Nephropathy
- Renal failure
3. Peripheral neuropathy
- Sensory Joss
- Motor weakness
4. Autonomic neuropathy
- Postural hypotension
- Gastrointestinal problems (gastroparesis; aitered bowel habit)
5. Foot disease
- Ulceration
Decision 17 G,R. No. 208314
VI
.•
--,...-.....__~-·----~--""·....._~..,...-,_~~~~-.......-:".'"•""'-o:_..,,,,._,".'.~·~~., ~~~.~-~-~-""""---"'~_,,-....,,~~
• Arthropathy
,I)
B. Macrovascul11r
L Corona<)' 9irculatiou
· Myocardial ischaemiu I iufim;tian ·
2. Cerebral circulation ·
·Transient ischaemic attack
·Stroke
3. Peripheral circulation
·• Claudication
• Ischaemia
75
Sympt~ms of i·Iyperglycacmi,a may include nocturia, change in weight, blurriiig of vision, nausea,
heaclache, mood change, irritability, and ap(.lfhy see B.M. FRIER & M. FISHER, Diabetes Mellitus,
DAVIDSON'S PRJNCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MEDICrNE 818 (20tll ed.); Hypertension may also have
nonspecific tiyrr1ptoms such as "di:a:ineiK>, palpit!ltions, easy fatigabil!ty, ~nd impotenc~" see
10
MCGRAW·HIU. BOUCATION, HARRJSml'S PRINCIPLES Of INTERNAL MEDICINE 1621 (19 ed.).
Decision 18 G.R. No. 208314
We are not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be brought
before this Court in Rule 45 petitions. Faced with nothing more than
petitioner's self-serving, unsubstantiated backtracking on his own
inconsistencies, we see no need to deviate from the uniform findings of the
Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of
Appeals. Petitioner's disavowals were not statements made in good faith but
were part of a serial utterance of lies.
VII
/
Occision ~1 G.R. No. 208314
Petitioner~s
non-compliance constrains us to not lend credibility to
his personc;il physician's asses~m~nt. In any event, the re<;mrd demonstrates
why this assessm.ent deserves no credence us against that of the company-
designated physician. He was under the cai~e and supervisi9n of Dr.
Barrairo throughout th@ more th;an foL1r months that intervened between his
repatriation and the filing of his Complaint. 89 For a period, he was kept
under Dr. Barrairo's close observation as he was confined at the De Los
Santos M~dical Center from June 10, 2010 to June 23, 2010. 90 Dr.
Barrairo's prolonged care and observation qf him yielded two disability
assessments: first, an interim assess111~nt on September 7, 2010; and
another, a verified assessment on September 30, 2010. 91 In contrast,
petitioner's personal physician examined him on only one occasion and
~
84
INC Sh~pmanagf!rnent, fnc. v. Rosales. 744 Phil. 774(2014) [Per. J. Brion, Second Division].
85
Id. at 787.
86
Rollo, p. 21.
87
Id. at 22.
38 Id.
89
id, l,jt 2 J,
% id,
91 ld.
"))
,___
Decision G.R. No. 208314
only under such circumstances that petitioner needed backing for his
Complaint. 92
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, JR~
Ast>ciate Justice
Chairperson
92
Id. at 22.
93
As in Santiago 1•. Pacbasin Ship Management, 686 Phil. 255, 268-269 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza, Third
Division]:
At any rate, said finding oueht not to be giv,3n more weight than the disability grading given by
the company-designated doctor. The POEA ·Standard Employ1wmt Contract clearly provides that
whc;:n a seafarer sustains a work.related illness or injury whik on boa.rd the vessel, his fitness or
unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. However, if the doctor
appointed by the seafarer m~kes a finding contrary to that of the assessment of the company-
designated physir,ian, the opinion ofa third dQi;:tor may be agreed jointly between the employer m1d the
seaforer as the decision final and binding on both of them. In this case, Santiago did not avail of this
procedure. There wa~ no agreement on a third doctor who shall examine him anew and whose finding
shall be final and bincting. Thus, this Court is left without choice but to uphold the certification made
by Dr. Lim with respect to Santiago's disability. (Citation omitted)
Decision 23 G.R. No. 208314
s . .IRES
Associate Justice
-
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusion,s in the above Decision had be~n p!ached in
consultation before the case was as$igned to the writer of the o~ion of the
Court's Division.
J. VELASCO, JR.
Aslociate Justice
ChairDfrson, Third Division
CEH.TIFICATION
ANTONIO T. CA
Acting Chief Justice
·· ~ ·'. \ ~ :-:; Eo n
~'-~
' - Ji' b" 'Li1017