G.R. No. 234346 - Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. vs. Quijano

Quijano was hired as a Cook on July 11, 2013, by petitioner Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. for its principal Marlow Navigation Netherlands B.V.
He underwent the required pre-employment medical examination and was declared fit for sea duty by the company-designated physician.
He boarded the vessel M/V Katharina Schepers on August 18, 2013, to serve under a six‑month contract.
On January 30, 2014, he was signed off from the vessel purportedly because his employment contract was completed.

After being signed off, Quijano reported to the petitioners’ office on February 3, 2014, where he received the balance of his final wages for January 1–30, 2014, and underwent a de-briefing interview.
He was subsequently rehired under a 10‑month Contract of Employment dated March 5, 2014; however, this employment did not materialize as he was soon confined at the East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC).
At EAMC, on March 18, 2014, he was diagnosed by his independent physician with liver abscess, cholecystitis with cholelithiasis, diabetes mellitus type II, and panophthalmitis of the right eye.

Quijano alleged that his illnesses were acquired during his employment and that the petitioners denied his request for medical assistance when he reported on February 3, 2014.
He claimed exposure to hostile working conditions onboard, which caused symptoms such as body weakness, easy fatigability, poor eyesight, and severe low back pain, resulting in his early disembarkation (with the contract effectively cut short to 5 1/2 months).
Based on these circumstances and his work-related illnesses, he filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, among other claims, under the IBF-AMOSUP IMEC/TCCC Collective Bargaining Agreement before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA).

Petitioners argued that Quijano’s disembarkation was due to the completion or expiration of his contract, not because of any work-related injury or illness.
They denied that Quijano had ever requested medical assistance and maintained that he completed his employment without incident while onboard.
They also contended that Quijano failed to comply with the mandated post‑employment medical examination requirement by not reporting to the company‑designated physician, thereby disqualifying him from any disability benefits.

The PVA, on January 27, 2016, ruled in favor of Quijano, granting him permanent and total disability benefits amounting to US$127,932.00 and awarding 10% attorney’s fees.
The rationale of the PVA emphasized that Quijano was denied proper medical assistance and that the company‑designated physician failed to render a definitive assessment of his fitness within the prescribed period, thus giving rise to an ipso jure transformation of his temporary disability into a permanent one.
Petitioners, disputing these findings, filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting that Quijano was not medically repatriated, and his failure to undergo the mandated post‑employment medical examination barred him from claiming benefits.

On March 29, 2017, the CA affirmed the PVA’s ruling by holding that the petitioner’s failure to provide necessary medical assistance justified Quijano’s resort to an independent physician.
The CA also agreed that the pre‑termination of the contract without proper justification evidenced that Quijano was medically repatriated and that the evidence showed his illnesses were work‑related.
Moreover, the CA classified Quijano as a junior officer for the purpose of computing disability benefits, despite petitioners’ contention that he was a rating.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by petitioners was denied on September 15, 2017, prompting the present petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the finding that Quijano was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

Was Quijano’s entitlement to disability benefits properly established given that he sought an independent medical examination after being refused assistance by the petitioners?
Did the failure by the petitioners to conduct a post‑employment medical examination in accordance with the mandatory procedure justify the transformation of temporary disability into permanent and total disability?
How should Quijano’s employment classification (junior officer versus rating) affect the computation of the disability benefits award?