Case Digest (G.R. No. 201834)
Facts:
Andres L. Dizon v. Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc. and DOLE UK (Ltd.), G.R. No. 201834, June 01, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Andres L. Dizon (a long‑service seafarer employed since 1976) sought disability benefits from his employers, respondents Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. and DOLE UK (Ltd.), after a pre‑employment medical examination in March 2007 declared him unfit for sea duty because of uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease. Dizon last served as Chief Cook aboard the DOLE Colombia on a nine‑month contract beginning March 6, 2006 and disembarked on February 14, 2007; he was examined in March 2007 and referred for further cardiac testing (stress test, ECG) that showed abnormal stress echocardiography. Dissatisfied with that result, Dizon obtained a contrary clearance from Seamen’s Hospital and requested MMLC re‑examination, which was denied.
Dizon filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits and related relief on January 6, 2009 before the Labor Arbiter, alleging the illness was work‑related and asserting he had disclosed hypertension prior to his last contract. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on May 29, 2009 in favor of Dizon, awarding the equivalent of US$60,000 as permanent total disability plus ten percent attorney’s fees (aggregate US$66,000), reasoning that the disease arose during employment and invoking the presumption of compensability after 30 years of continuous service.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter on grounds that Dizon failed to submit to the mandatory post‑employment medical examination by a company‑designated physician within three working days of his return, and that he did not prove his working conditions increased the risk of contracting coronary artery disease; the NLRC, however, granted P50,000 humanitarian assistance. Dizon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied relief and affirmed the NLRC decision. Dizon then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rul...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner forfeit his right to claim disability benefits by failing to submit to a post‑employment medical examination by the company‑designated physician within three working days of repatriation?
- Did petitioner prove by substantial evidence that his coronary artery disease was work‑related and existed during the term of his employment contract?
- Is petitioner entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees des...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)