Case Digest (G.R. No. 191491)
Facts:
Jebsens Maritime Inc., represented by Ms. Arlene Asuncion and/or Alliance Marine Services, Ltd. v. Enrique Undag, G.R. No. 191491, December 14, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Enrique Undag was hired as Lead Operator aboard the FPSO Jamestown owned by Alliance Marine Services, Ltd. and locally managed by Jebsens Maritime, Inc. His contract ran four months with a basic monthly wage of US$806; he was deployed on March 24, 2003 and repatriated to the Philippines on July 18, 2003 when his contract expired.
On September 24, 2003, about two months after repatriation, respondent consulted Dr. Efren Vicaldo and was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus II and an impediment graded X (20.15%), and was declared unfit for seafaring work. Respondent requested financial assistance from petitioners, who denied it. He then filed a complaint for sickness/disability benefits before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), claiming chest pains and breathing difficulty since July 2003 while on board and seeking reimbursement of medical expenses, sickness allowance of US$3,224.00, damages and attorneys’ fees.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) heard the case and on June 30, 2005 ordered petitioners to pay respondent the peso equivalent of US$60,000 representing total permanent disability compensation, sickness allowance of US$3,224.00 and 10% attorneys’ fees. The NLRC reversed the LA, denying the claim for disability benefits on the ground that respondent failed to present substantial evidence that his illness was suffered while on board or after disembarkation; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied (NLRC Resolutions of October 17, 2005 and January 24, 2006).
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 16, 2009 set aside the NLRC and ruled that respondent proved his illness was work-related or at least aggravated by his seafaring duties and that the illness rendered him permanently unfit for sea duty, thus entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits. The CA’s September 16, 2009 Decision and its March 3, 2010 Resolution were thereafter challenged by petitioners in this petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Petitioners sought reversal on the sole issue that the CA erred in awarding full disability benefits, arguing (a) respondent fraudulently misrepresented his medical history at pre-employment medical examination (PEME), (b) the illnesses were not acquired during his contract, and (c) the Labor Code provision on permanent disability is inapplicable to POEA-SEC claims. Respondent answered that petitioners did not raise fraud earlier and are estopped; he also contended he complied with medical requirements or was not subject to the 3-day rule, that repatriation by contract ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding full disability benefits to respondent Enrique Undag....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)