G.R. No. 244437 - Heirs of Pajares vs. North Sea Marine Services Corp.

Amadeo Alex G. Pajares, a seafarer employed as a Suite Attendant by North Sea Marine Services Corporation, entered into a shipboard employment contract.
The contract provided a basic monthly salary of US$477.00 for a period of six (6) months and enumerated responsibilities such as cabin care, room and messenger services, laundry services, and laundry pick-up and delivery.

As part of his work on the cruise ship Silver Whisper, Amadeo was regularly involved in cleaning cabins and bathrooms comparable to service in five-star hotels, necessitating the frequent use of strong cleaning chemicals.
The daily exposure to noxious chemicals eventually led to a health incident when Amadeo suffered from severe nose bleeding, prompting him to seek medical assistance onboard and later at Aleris Hamlet Private Hospital in Copenhagen.

Upon his health crisis, Amadeo underwent a series of tests; he was declared unfit for sea duties and was repatriated to the Philippines, where he immediately reported his condition to North Sea.
North Sea referred him to its designated clinic and subsequently to a company-designated physician at the Chinese General Hospital who diagnosed him with Multiple Myeloma, a form of blood cancer.
Although a snapshot of the final medical assessment (indicating a Grade 1 Disability) was taken by Amadeo—with no objection from the company-designated physician—Amadeo was denied an official copy of his medical reports on the ground of confidentiality.
Following this, an independent physician was consulted; after a series of tests, the independent evaluation too confirmed the presence of Multiple Myeloma and declared Amadeo unfit for sea service.

Amadeo formally notified the respondents, via a letter dated September 8, 2016, about the findings of the independent physician and requested a third medical opinion.
Despite his requests—including a grievance proceeding for the release of his medical records—the matter was not settled during the mediation and conciliation phase, leading the parties to agree to submit the dispute for voluntary arbitration pursuant to the company’s Collection and Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

In the complaint for payment of total and permanent disability benefits, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Panel of VAs) dismissed the claim for lack of merit, relying on the medical findings of the company-designated physician which stated that Multiple Myeloma was not work-related.
The Panel of VAs noted deficiencies in the evidence submitted by petitioners, such as the lack of a clear diagnosis, absence of indication regarding disability grade, and the untimely submission of the independent physician’s medical report.
Despite dismissing the claim for permanent disability benefits, the Panel of VAs awarded petitioners financial assistance in the amount of US$20,000.00 for reasons of social and compassionate justice.

North Sea elevated the case before the CA by questioning the financial assistance awarded to petitioners, while petitioners, in their Comment, also claimed entitlement to a death benefit of US$98,948.00 and sought reversal of the Panel of VAs decision.
The CA, however, limited its review to the issue of financial assistance, ruling that no modification of judgment could be made for issues not previously appealed by petitioners.
The CA affirmed the Panel of VAs’ findings but reduced the financial assistance award to US$8,500.00, basing its decision partly on humanitarian grounds and the longstanding, exemplary service of Amadeo with North Sea.

Petitioners argued that the CA erred in limiting relief to financial assistance and denying permanent disability benefits.
They further contended that the CA failed to hold the respondents accountable for not furnishing Amadeo’s complete final medical assessment and for not referring him for a third medical opinion.
Additional issues raised by petitioners were that the CA incorrectly ruled that Amadeo did not suffer from total and permanent disability and thus was not entitled to the maximum disability benefit.
Ultimately, these issues form the basis of their Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners’ claim for total and permanent disability benefits.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that petitioners are only entitled to financial assistance.
Whether additional claims—including the entitlement to a death benefit and maximum disability benefits—could be entertained despite not being raised on appeal prior to the CA’s decision.
Whether the respondents’ failure to provide complete medical records and a referral for a third opinion constituted a due process violation impacting the claim for disability benefits.