Case Digest (G.R. No. 202177)
Facts:
This is BW Shipping Philippines, Inc., BW Gas ASA/Norway and/or Rolando C. Adorable v. Mario H. Ong, G.R. No. 202177, promulgated November 17, 2021, the Supreme Court Second Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are BW Shipping Philippines, Inc., (joined by BW Gas ASA/Norway and/or Rolando C. Adorable) and respondent is Mario H. Ong, a seafarer. Ong had a long employment relationship with petitioner beginning in January 1999 and was employed on March 19, 2008 as Chief Steward and Chief Cook aboard the vessel BW Hemina under a nine‑month contract with a monthly basic salary of USD1,127.00. His duties included managing provisions and supervising kitchen staff and reports to port authorities and the principal company. Prior to embarkation he was declared “fit for sea duty (without restriction)” by company‑designated physicians.
While on board he developed dizziness, nausea, headaches, pruritus, polyuria and dyspnea beginning June 8, 2008; a Florida physician on June 17, 2008 diagnosed “uncontrolled diabetes and uncontrolled hypertension,” and he was repatriated June 20, 2008. Company‑designated physicians treated him, performed tests, and on October 2, 2008 certified him “fit to resume sea duties.” Despite this, Ong later consulted Dr. Antonio C. Pascual who, in a medical certificate dated January 12, 2009, diagnosed “Essential Hypertension, Stage 2 and Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2.” When petitioners declined to defray his medication costs, Ong filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, damages and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on June 19, 2009 awarding Ong permanent total disability benefits of USD90,000.00 (in Philippine currency) and attorney’s fees, reasoning that the illness occurred during the contract and that Ong could not return to his customary work for more than 241 days. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on October 27, 2009 affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on the merits despite noting that compensability requires work‑connection; the NLRC denied reconsideration on December 22, 2009. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition on March 9, 2012 and denied reconsideration on June 4, 2012, affirming t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s award of permanent total disability benefits to respondent?
- Did respondent prove entitlement to permanent total disability benefits for diabetes mellitus and essential hypertension under the POEA‑Standard Employment Contract (POEA‑SEC)?
- Did respondent’s failure to invoke the POEA‑SEC dispute‑resolution mechanism (referral to a jointly agreed third physician) bar his claim or require deference...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)