Case Digest (G.R. No. 239390)
Facts:
Bright Maritime Corporation and/or Norbulk Shipping UK Limited v. Jerry J. Racela, G.R. No. 239390, June 03, 2019, the Supreme Court First Division, Gesmundo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Bright Maritime Corporation (manning agency) and its foreign principal Norbulk Shipping UK Limited engaged respondent Jerry J. Racela as a fitter on March 21, 2013 under an eight-month seafarer contract governed by the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Respondent underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared “Fit for Sea Duty as Engine Rating.” He embarked June 8, 2013.
While on board in early 2014 he developed chest pains and dyspnea and on March 23, 2014 was admitted in Israel for pulmonary edema and diagnosed with severe aortic regurgitation and aneurysm of the sinus of Valsalva; he underwent aortic valve replacement on March 25, 2014, remained under treatment, and was repatriated April 19, 2014. Post-repatriation, the company-designated physician treated him, performed follow-ups and a coronary angiography, but on July 21 and 23, 2014 concluded the condition was pre-existing/hereditary and declined to give a disability grading; a private physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, later assigned an Impediment Grade VI (50%) and declared him unfit for sea duty.
Respondent filed a disability complaint on June 9, 2015 seeking permanent total disability benefits (US$60,000 plus other relief). The Labor Arbiter (LA) granted the complaint on April 19, 2016, awarding total and permanent disability benefits and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed in a September 28, 2016 decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of proof of work-relationship. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied and he sought certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which in CA-G.R. SP No. 148879 reversed the NLRC on February 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court in a Rule 45 petition review factual findings where the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals conflict with those of the NLRC?
- Was respondent entitled to disability compensation under the 2010 POEA-SEC and/or the parties’ CBA for hi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)