G.R. No. 131856-57 - People vs. Montinola

Seafarer Silvino Nazam was hired by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (Transmarine) on behalf of its principal-co-petitioner, Global Navigation, Ltd., for the position of Bosun.
The employment was based on a 9‑month contract with a salary of US$535 per month.
Nazam was deployed on August 26, 2004, aboard the vessel M/V Maersk Durban at Ulsan, South Korea.

Nazam was repatriated to the Philippines on September 18, 2004, after serving for twenty-three days.
His repatriation was based on a handwritten letter dated September 16, 2004, in which he requested to be relieved from his post for “personal reasons.”

On October 5, 2004, Nazam filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking:

He alleged that during his service on board, he was subjected to hostile working conditions, including humiliation, verbal, and mental abuse from the Chief Officer and the Master.
Additional allegations included:

Being forced to sign blank documents by the vessel’s Master.
Being ousted from his position as Bosun.
Denial of medical assistance upon reaching Yokohama, Japan.
Refusal by Transmarine to grant a post-employment medical examination upon his repatriation.

Three weeks after filing his complaint (on October 27, 2004), Nazam consulted independent physician Dr. Jesus Alberto Q. Poblete, who diagnosed him with “Major Depression with Psychotic Features R/O Traumatic Disorder.”
Later, on March 19, 2005, Dr. Raymond Rosales of the Metropolitan Hospital diagnosed him with Depressive Disorder and issued a medical certification stating that he was “unfit for sea duty.”

On August 29, 2006, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes rendered a decision in favor of Nazam, awarding permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000, a sickness allowance of US$2,140, and moral and exemplary damages of P50,000 each plus 10% for attorney’s fees.
The Arbiter’s decision was based on:

Evidence that Nazam’s pre-employment medical records attested to his fitness for sea duty.
The conclusion that the illnesses—despite “major depression” not being explicitly listed as an occupational disease—were acquired during his service due to the adverse working conditions.

The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision by a Decision dated January 31, 2008, dismissing Nazam’s complaint on the basis that:

He had voluntarily requested to be relieved via his letter.
He failed to undergo the mandatory post‑employment medical examination within three working days.
He did not prove that his repatriation was caused by a work‑related illness.
Depression was held not to be compensable as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC.

Nazam’s motion for reconsideration was denied by NLRC Resolution on April 25, 2008.
On September 30, 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, basing its conclusion on the link between the shipboard environment and Nazam’s mental disorder.

Section 20(B) of the POEA‑SEC requires seafarers to undergo a post‑employment medical examination by a company‑designated physician within three working days upon return from deployment unless physically incapacitated.
Nazam complied by merely reporting to Transmarine’s office, but he did not undergo the mandatory company‑designated medical examination, thereby failing to satisfy this requirement.
This failure was held to result in the forfeiture of his right to claim disability benefits.

The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition.
It reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated September 30, 2009 and the Resolution dated December 17, 2009.
The NLRC Decision dated January 31, 2008 and the Resolution dated April 25, 2008 dismissing Nazam’s complaint were reinstated.
The Court held that despite the allegations of abusive working conditions and the diagnosis of depression, procedural non‑compliance—especially the failure to undergo the mandatory post‑employment medical examination—foreclosed the compensability of the claimed benefits under the POEA‑SEC.

Whether Nazam’s claim for disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees is compensable under the POEA‑SEC despite his submission of a letter requesting relief from duty.

Determining if the resignation letter negated the presumption that his illness was acquired during the period of employment.
Evaluating if the work‑related conditions sufficiently caused the alleged mental disorder.

Whether depression, as experienced by Nazam, qualifies as an occupational disease under Section 32‑A of the POEA‑SEC.

Scrutinizing the evidence that the hostile work environment contributed to his mental deterioration.
Considering the statutory requirement that, for mental diseases to be compensable, they must be attributable to a traumatic head injury—a condition not met in this case.

Whether Nazam’s failure to undergo the mandatory post‑employment medical examination within three working days constitutes sufficient procedural default to forfeit his right to claim the benefits.

Analyzing the importance of compliance with the procedural requirements mandated by the POEA‑SEC.
Determining the impact of delayed medical consultations and examinations on the legitimacy of the claim.