Case Digest (G.R. No. 248774)
Facts:
Kennedy R. Quines v. United Philippine Lines Inc. and/or Shell International Trading and Shipping Co., G.R. No. 248774, May 12, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Kennedy R. Quines filed a Notice to Arbitrate on January 13, 2017 against respondents United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPLI) and/or Shell International Trading and Shipping Co. (Shell Shipping Co.), seeking total and permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The dispute arose from petitioner’s last seafaring engagement (signed December 10, 2015) as an Able Seaman aboard the M/V Silver Ebuna under a POEA-approved contract and a collective bargaining agreement (IBF-AMOSUP/IMEC TCCC 2015–2017).
Petitioner alleged that he had worked continuously for UPLI since 2002, was repeatedly declared fit for sea duty, and disclosed a pre-existing hypertension which he managed with maintenance medication. In March 2016, while performing strenuous deck duties, he experienced chest pains, severe dizziness, shortness of breath and an elevated blood pressure (170/100 mmHg) and was medically repatriated on April 1, 2016. Company-designated physicians examined him; their reports of November 18, 2016 described controlled blood pressure but continued episodes of dizziness and chest pain, recommended psychiatric evaluation, and stopped short of issuing a final, definitive disability grading. Petitioner later consulted Dr. Antonio C. Pascual (December 7, 2016) who diagnosed Ischemic Heart Disease and Hypertension Stage 2 and issued a medical report stating he was “MEDICALLY UNFIT TO WORK AS A SEAMAN.” Petitioner alleged respondents terminated his company treatment and failed to re-employ him for more than 240 days.
Respondents countered that petitioner had disclosed pre-existing hypertension at PEME, that company-designated specialists found his cardiovascular and neurologic work-ups essentially normal (save for controlled hypertension), and that his dizziness and chest pain were likely psychiatric (hyperventilation/anxiety). They maintained there was no definitive evidence of Coronary or Ischemic Heart Disease and that the company physicians properly declared him “not permanently unfit for sea duties.”
The National Conciliation and Mediation Board — Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) rendered a Decision on December 1, 2017 declaring petitioner totally and permanently disabled and awarding US$98,848.00 under the collective bargaining agreement; respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied (November 19, 2018). On petition for review, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated April 24, 2019, reversed the PVA, finding no definitive diagnosis of Coronary or Ischemic Heart Disease and concluding petitioner was not permanently unfit; CA ordered return of the executed award (Php5,544,937.87 less US$3,000 assistance). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (August 9, 2019).
Petition...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition re-examine factual findings made by the Court of Appeals where those findings conflict with those of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators?
- Is petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits—i.e., was his illness work-related or work‑aggravated, and did respondents’ company-designated physicians render a final and definitive assessment within the 120/240‑day periods such that petitioner is not...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)