Case Digest (G.R. No. 217338)
Facts:
Dino S. Palo v. Senator Crewing (Manila), Inc., G.R. No. 217338, March 18, 2021, the Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dino S. Palo was hired by respondent Senator Crewing (Manila), Inc. (SCI) as an oiler under successive six‑month contracts for deployment to foreign vessels on behalf of a foreign principal. After passing a pre‑employment medical examination (PEME), Palo boarded M/S CMA CGM Verlaine on September 24, 2011. In early December 2011 he experienced sudden back pain while carrying a container of chemical cleaners. He continued to work though the pain later intensified and SCI referred him for medical examination in Mexico, where he was diagnosed with “Left Lumbociatic, Lumbar Spondilo Artrosis”; he was not repatriated then and completed that contract.
SCI rehired Palo on April 25, 2012 for another six‑month contract aboard L/T Cortesia; he again passed a PEME as fit for duty and was deployed without undergoing an MRI. On July 7, 2012 Palo suffered severe back pain lifting a 30‑kilogram pump motor. He was referred for medical examinations in Malaysia and later England; English physicians recommended repatriation. He was repatriated to the Philippines on October 6, 2012 and referred to the company‑designated physicians, who documented multiple lumbar disc findings. Palo underwent surgery on December 21–27, 2012. On March 19, 2013 the company‑designated physician issued a certification noting the period of medical/surgical evaluation (October 8, 2012 to March 19, 2013); Palo claims he was not furnished any final disability grading or fitness‑to‑work certification. On March 22, 2013 his personal physician assessed him as totally and permanently disabled; he filed a complaint for disability benefits with the Labor Arbiter (LA).
In a Decision dated November 21, 2013 the LA awarded Palo US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits, P200,000 moral and exemplary damages, and 10% attorney’s fees, finding the injury work‑related and rejecting SCI’s allegation of fraudulent nondisclosure. SCI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision dated April 30, 2014 the NLRC reversed, holding that under Section 20(E) of the POEA‑Standard Employment Contract (POEA‑SEC) a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre‑existing condition in the PEME is disqualified from benefits; SCI pointed to medical records showing a 2001 history of back problems and concluded Palo concealed that history.
Palo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Resolution of September 3, 2014 the CA dismissed his petition outright for failure to state respondents’ addresses and material dates showing timeliness; his motion for reconsideration supplying those particulars was denied. Palo then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner Dino S. Palo entitled to disability benefits? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)