Title
Carandan vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing Manila, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 252195
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2021
Seafarer suffered cardiac arrest, diagnosed with coronary artery disease; claimed disability benefits, alleging work-aggravated illness. Supreme Court ruled no concealment, illness work-related, awarded total/permanent disability benefits.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 238517)

Facts:

  • Employment and Duties
    • On January 15, 2016, petitioner Jolly R. Carandan was hired by respondent Dohle Seafront Crewing Manila, Inc. on behalf of principal respondent Dohle (IOM) Limited as an Able Seaman aboard the vessel "MV Favourisation" for a nine-month contract at a monthly salary of US$592.
    • Petitioner’s responsibilities included strenuous physical tasks such as operating ballast tank valves, cleaning ship areas, steering operations, preparing cranes and cargo holds, and other duties assigned by the master or officers.
  • Medical Background and Initial PEME
    • In December 2015, prior to deployment, petitioner underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), where he denied any diagnosis or treatment for hypertension or heart disease.
    • Based on this PEME, petitioner was declared fit for sea duty and deployed on January 17, 2016.
  • Onboard Illness and Medical Treatment
    • On April 23, 2016, approximately three months into his deployment, petitioner suffered a cardiac arrest while performing routine tasks. He lost consciousness and was brought for medical treatment in Germany.
    • Diagnosed with coronary artery disease and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI), petitioner underwent coronary angiography and PCI stenting of two vessels.
    • Petitioner was repatriated on May 3, 2016, and continued treatment at Cardinal Santos Medical Center.
    • He was hospitalized from May 23 to 27, 2016 for dizziness and diagnosed with benign paroxysmal vertigo and ischemic heart disease secondary to coronary artery disease.
    • The company-designated doctor opined on June 24, 2016, that recuperation might last 124 days, with the final diagnosis confirming cardiovascular disease with intervention performed.
  • Medical Opinions and Dispute
    • Petitioner’s condition did not improve despite treatment, and respondents did not clarify his fitness to resume duties.
    • An independent cardiologist, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, opined on September 16, 2016, that petitioner’s cardiovascular disease was work aggravated and declared him unfit to return to sea duty.
    • Petitioner demanded total and permanent disability benefits, which respondents denied, alleging material concealment of a pre-existing illness.
    • Respondents claimed petitioner had prior knowledge of hypertension and heart conditions, which he failed to disclose in his PEME. They also cited petitioner’s admission to Dr. Go of chest pains since 2000 and hypertension diagnosed in 2012.
    • Petitioner denied these claims, asserting he only referred to his April 2016 heart attack when he affirmed having heart trouble on a May 2016 information sheet.
  • Procedural History
    • The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) granted petitioner’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits amounting to US$98,848 plus attorney’s fees in August 2017, finding the cardiovascular illness compensable and work aggravated.
    • PVA rejected respondents’ evidence of prior illness for lack of proof and noted respondents’ failure to provide a definitive medical assessment within 120/240 days from repatriation.
    • Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the PVA in January 2018.
    • On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in a November 2019 decision, reversed the PVA ruling, dismissing petitioner’s claim due to material concealment and holding the illness as non-work related.
    • CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in March 2020.
    • Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the CA decisions.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner was guilty of material concealment of a previous medical condition prior to employment.
  • Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits for his cardiovascular ailment.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.