Case Digest (G.R. No. 254186)
Facts:
Solito C. Amores, Jr. v. Goldroute Maritime Inc., G.R. No. 254186, April 17, 2024, Supreme Court First Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Solito C. Amores, Jr. contracted with Goldroute Maritime Inc. on behalf of Kyowa Kisen Co. Ltd. as an oiler on board the vessel Kanoura for nine months beginning March 28, 2015; he passed the mandatory pre-employment medical examination (PEME). During his contract, in October 2015, petitioner experienced chest pains and shortness of breath and was repatriated on October 18, 2015 along with two other seafarers; repatriation was performed as part of a crew transfer order and not recorded as a medical repatriation. Upon arrival in the Philippines petitioner reported to respondent’s office and was told he would be transferred to another vessel; he claims he requested a post-employment medical examination (PEME) but was told to see his private physician.
Petitioner consulted a private physician on October 20, 2015, who prescribed medications and advised further tests. On December 15, 2015, petitioner underwent a PEME by respondent’s company-designated physician, Dr. Ramon M. Guzman, who found Hypertension, Controlled, T/C Ischemic Heart for Work-Up and Possible Angiography and declared him unfit for sea duty. Respondent then referred petitioner to company-designated cardiologist Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa Javier, who on December 28, 2016 assessed hypertensive cardiovascular disease to rule out atherosclerotic heart disease, noted an abnormal stress echo (Dec. 17, 2015), and recommended a CT angiogram and follow-up.
Petitioner sought a grievance meeting (Jan. 8, 2016) which failed, then filed a Notice to Arbitrate with the RCMB–NCR; the dispute went to voluntary arbitration (MVA-028-RCMB-NCR-020-03-02-2016). The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) rendered a Decision dated May 10, 2016 declaring petitioner permanently and totally disabled and ordering Goldroute Maritime, Inc. to pay disability benefits under the POEA-SEC in the amount of USD 60,000, sickness allowance USD 2,416, and 10% attorney’s fees; a motion for reconsideration was denied on July 5, 2016.
Respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated September 4, 2019 (CA-G.R. SP No. 146946), reversed the PVA: it set aside the total-and-permanent-disability award, awarded sickness allowance only from repatriation (Oct. 18, 2015) until the date petitioner filed his RCMB claim, and set aside attorney’s fees; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 3, 2020. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
This Court initially denied the peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review the conflicting factual findings of the PVA and the Court of Appeals in this labor case?
- Is petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC (or by operation of law) given the record—specifically, did respondent’s alleged refusal to provide post-employment medical examination or petitioner’s medical circumstance...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)