G.R. No. 143403 - Cruz vs. Gangan

Mark Anthony Saso was engaged by 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. on behalf of its principal, Lin Wen Yu, to work as a fisherman aboard a fishing vessel in Taiwan.
His employment contract was for 24 months with an agreed monthly salary of NT$17,280.00, and he underwent the mandatory Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) where he was declared “fit to work/fit for sea service.”

Shortly after his deployment, specifically on March 12, 2010, Saso was involved in an accident when a hanging fishnet loaded with fish struck him, fracturing his right thigh.
He was operated on twice in two different hospitals in Taiwan, and his condition was managed as a work-related injury.
Saso was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines on April 20, 2010, arriving on crutches with his injury visibly affecting his mobility.

Upon repatriation, Saso alleged that respondents (88 Aces, its managing director Carmencita A. Sarreal, and Lin Wen Yu) neglected to provide him with assistance such as arranging for immediate medical evaluation or transportation from the airport.
When he reported to 88 Aces on April 23, 2010, he was told to shoulder the expenses for his continued medical treatment, with reimbursement only applicable upon the presentation of proper documentation.
On August 3, 2010, Saso filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter seeking disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Respondents arranged for a post-employment medical examination with the company-designated physician, Dr. Rafael S. Recto, who examined Saso on July 1, 2010 and again on September 3, 2010. His medical bulletin noted a comminuted fracture, two surgeries, callous formation, limb shortening, and muscular weakness resulting in an abnormal gait.
Due to concerns that Dr. Recto failed to assess Saso’s disability properly, Saso obtained an independent assessment by Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira, whose report dated September 8, 2010 detailed the extensive nature of the injury, confirmed impaired physical function, and declared partial permanent disability.

Saso contended that he complied with the mandatory post-employment reporting requirement by appearing at 88 Aces on April 23, 2010.
Respondents argued that Saso failed to submit himself for a post-employment medical examination within three days of repatriation and, moreover, filed his complaint prematurely before the expiration of the 120-day period for disability assessment as provided under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The Labor Arbiter ruled on April 15, 2011, granting Saso permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00, a sickness allowance corresponding to 120 days, and attorney’s fees, while dismissing other claims.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in its December 20, 2011 Decision, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on procedural grounds, holding that Saso’s failure to comply with the three-day reporting requirement invalidated his compensation claims, and that his complaint was filed prematurely.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later denied Saso’s petition for certiorari on September 18, 2013, affirming that the absence of timely post-employment examination and the premature filing of his complaint deprived him of his cause of action for total and permanent disability benefits.

Whether Saso complied with the POEA-SEC requirement to submit himself for a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician within three working days from his repatriation.
Whether the absence of a timely post-employment medical examination should bar Saso’s claim for compensation and benefits.

Whether filing the complaint before the expiration of the 120-day period for disability assessment constituted a procedural infirmity that undermined Saso’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits.
The proper interpretation of the 120-day timeline – whether it solely governs the timing of the disability assessment or also dictates the filing deadline for the claim.

Whether the failure to provide a timely post-employment medical examination was attributable to Saso’s inaction or to the respondents’ negligence and procedural lapses (e.g., failure to issue a referral or provide immediate assistance).
The impact of the employer’s conduct on Saso’s right to claim compensation despite alleged non-compliance with the prescribed reporting period.

Whether Saso is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits or merely to benefits for temporary incapacity and partial disability.
The extent to which the medical evidence, including assessments by both the company-designated physician and Saso’s independent physician, supports granting him the benefits claimed.