G.R. No. 247338 - Chin vs. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc.

On April 13, 2016, petitioner Roger V. Chin was hired as an Able Seaman by Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and its officer Renel C. Ramos, acting on behalf of the foreign principal, Maersk Line A/S.
His engagement was under a six-month contract for service on the vessel MV Maersk Danube, which was allegedly covered by a Singaporean Organization of Seamen Collective Bargaining Agreement (SoS CBA).
Prior to assuming his duties, petitioner underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was declared fit for duty.

Petitioner boarded the vessel on May 1, 2016, where he was required to perform demanding manual labor.
In October 2016, while lifting the steel cover of a chain pipe under the mooring to remove debris, petitioner experienced excruciating back pain accompanied by symptoms suggestive of blurred vision or a heart attack.
He reported his condition to his superiors and requested medical consultation; however, instead of immediate treatment, he was advised to undergo medical repatriation and was subsequently signed off from the vessel on October 17, 2016.

After arriving in Manila, petitioner received a proper post-employment medical examination and further treatment from the company-designated physician, Dr. Ferdinand Bernal.
He was diagnosed with Degenerative Disc Disease spanning from L3-L4 to L5-S1, was given appropriate medications, and was advised to start physical therapy sessions.
On December 5, 2016, after various consultations and tests, petitioner was declared asymptomatic and free from lower back pains, culminating in the signing of a Certificate of Fitness for Work.

On January 25, 2018, a second medical opinion was sought by petitioner from Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, who assessed that petitioner was “unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity.”
Petitioner's request for disability compensation from the respondents was denied, leading him to file a notice to arbitrate with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for permanent and total disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondents maintained that petitioner had already been declared fit to work by Dr. Bernal after an extensive medical evaluation and had voluntarily signed the Certificate of Fitness for Work.

In a decision dated August 28, 2018, the Maritime Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit.
The VA based his ruling on several factors, including:

The extensive medical examination, treatment, and therapy rendered to petitioner by Dr. Bernal, which resulted in a declaration of fitness for work.
Petitioner's own acceptance and non-contestation of the Certificate of Fitness for Work.
The absence of substantial evidence linking his illness to his work or aggravating his condition as a seafarer.
The failure to comply with the required conflict resolution procedure or secure a third doctor referral as mandated under Section 20 (A) (3) of the POEA-SEC.
The limited evidentiary weight accorded to Dr. Garcia’s one-time consultation, based solely on an MRI from 2016.
The provision that even if petitioner were entitled to disability benefits, the SoS CBA did not cover the vessel MV Maersk Danube.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated October 29, 2018.

Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the CA, contesting the VA’s decision.
In a Resolution dated December 19, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition for review on the ground that it was filed one day late; petitioner was deemed to have had until December 3, 2018 to file, but he submitted his petition on December 4, 2018 via private courier.
A motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was similarly denied in a Resolution dated May 9, 2019, prompting the present petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review on the basis of it being filed out of time, given the prescribed filing period.
Whether the filing deadline was calculated from the proper event, namely, the receipt of the VA’s resolution on the motion for reconsideration.

Whether petitioner was obligated to exhaust administrative remedies, particularly through the motion for reconsideration, prior to filing the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appropriate interpretation of the 10-day period set in Article 276 of the Labor Code versus the 15-day appeal period under Section 4 of Rule 43.