Case Digest (G.R. No. 210955)
Facts:
Danilo A. Lerona v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 210955, August 14, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Danilo A. Lerona was employed by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. on behalf of Neda Maritime Agency Co., Ltd. as a fitter under a contract dated February 27, 2009, and boarded M/V Penelope on March 6, 2009. Prior to deployment, petitioner underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared “FIT TO WORK AS SEAMAN.” On August 1, 2009, while aboard, he experienced severe chest pains and dizziness and was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines on August 13, 2009.
Upon repatriation petitioner was confined and examined by respondents’ company-designated physician, Dr. Jose Emmanuel F. Gonzales, who noted petitioner’s history of hypertension and ordered further cardiac workup. A Stress-Thallium test indicated a mild reversible defect, but a subsequent coronary angiogram showed no vessel abnormality; the cardiologist advised medical management only. Petitioner was later referred to an ENT specialist for dizziness and underwent audiometry revealing mild sensorineural hearing loss; he was then placed under observation and scheduled for a follow-up on October 23, 2009, but he failed to report and was declared to have absconded by Dr. Gonzales.
Unknown to respondents, petitioner consulted an independent physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, on December 17, 2009, who diagnosed Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Angina Pectoris, and rated impairment at 41.80%, declaring petitioner permanently unfit for seafaring duties. Petitioner filed a complaint on January 14, 2010 for recovery of total and permanent disability benefits, medical expenses and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered judgment on August 2, 2010 awarding petitioner US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits and attorney’s fees, finding respondents’ company physicians failed to issue a disability grading within 120 days and rejecting respondents’ estoppel and absconding defenses. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA in a February 8, 2011 Decision, siding with respondents on the grounds that company-designated physicians’ examinations were more extensive, petitioner failed to satisfy documentary requisites for hypertension to be compensable under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, and petitioner did not follow the third-doctor referral rule.
On reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself and reinstated the LA in a June 24, 2011 Resolution, concluding the third-doctor referral was not always mandatory and that petitioner was still unable to return to work more than 120 days after repatriation. The NLRC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on October 24, 2011. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in an October 2, 2013 Decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 122984), set aside the NLRC Resolution, reinstated its earlier dismissal of petitioner’s complaint, an...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner is disqualified from receiving total and permanent disability benefits due to fraudulent misrepresentation for concealing hypertension in his PEME.
- Whether petitioner is disqualified from receiving total and permanent disability benefits for medical abandonment in failing to complete treatment and preventing the company-designated physician from issuing a final assessment, and whether the 120-day o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)