G.R. No. 254186 - Solito C. Amores, Jr. vs. Goldroute Maritime Inc.

On March 28, 2015, petitioner Solito C. Amores, Jr. entered into a Contract of Employment with Goldroute Maritime Inc. on behalf of its principal, Kyowa Kisen Co. Ltd., to serve as an oiler aboard the vessel “Kanoura” for a nine‐month period.
Petitioner underwent and passed the mandatory pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty.

Sometime in October 2015, while on board, petitioner experienced chest pains and difficulty breathing.
Before he could report his symptoms to the ship’s captain, he was informed that he would be repatriated—the captain merely stating that it was the respondent company’s order.
On October 18, 2015, petitioner, along with two other seafarers, was repatriated to the Philippines.

On October 19, 2015, petitioner reported to the respondent’s office, where he was informed he would be transferred to another vessel and was instructed to await further advice regarding deployment.
Despite experiencing intermittent chest pains, when petitioner requested a post-employment medical examination, he was told to consult his own private doctor.
On October 20, 2015, he consulted Dr. Rogelio M. Ramirez who prescribed medications and recommended further tests (e.g., electrocardiogram, treadmill stress test).

On December 5, 2015, petitioner was notified of his lineup for deployment and advised to undergo another PEME.
On December 15, 2015, petitioner was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. Ramon M. Guzman, who, after physical and laboratory evaluations, found him suffering from hypertension and T/C ischemic heart issues, subsequently declaring petitioner unfit for sea duty.
On December 28, 2016, petitioner underwent further cardiovascular evaluation at PMP Diagnostic Center, Inc. by Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa Javier, the company-designated cardiologist. The examination, which included a Stress Echo with abnormal results, suggested additional diagnostic tests (such as a CT Angiogram) to rule out further complications.

On January 8, 2016, petitioner requested a grievance meeting with the respondent to resolve his medical concerns; however, no settlement was reached.
Petitioner then filed a Notice to Arbitrate before the Regional Conciliation and Mediation Board, National Capital Region (RCMB-NCR), initiating voluntary arbitration.
In the arbitration, petitioner claimed entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, based on his assertion that his hypertensive cardiovascular condition was work-related.

On May 10, 2016, the PVA rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, declaring him totally and permanently disabled and ordering Goldroute Maritime Inc. to pay disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees.
The PVA based its finding on the fact that petitioner, who was initially declared fit for sea duty, developed symptoms only after strenuous work conditions and consumption of typical onboard provisions; further noting that cardiovascular illnesses are compensable under the relevant section of the POEA-SEC.

Dissatisfied with the PVA ruling, respondent elevated the case to the CA in a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The CA reversed the PVA decision, holding that petitioner’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits was premature because:

Petitioner had not complied with the recommendation to undergo further medical tests for a definitive disability rating.
The December 15, 2015 medical report was only an interim assessment issued as part of the PEME, which is a pre-employment requirement, rather than a final determination of disability.

Although the CA awarded sickness allowance from the date of repatriation until the filing of the claim, it set aside the award for total and permanent disability benefits as well as attorney’s fees.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that respondent’s failure to provide a mandatory post-employment medical examination automatically entitled him to full disability benefits by operation of law.
Petitioner contended that the 120/240-day period for final medical assessment was not applicable since he was not referred for a proper post-employment examination.
Respondent countered that petitioner’s claim was premature, noting that his repatriation was not due to medical reasons, that he failed to undergo the additional recommended tests, and that his evidence was insufficient to prove a work-related illness.

Petitioner’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits was premature since it was based on an interim medical report.
The absence of a proper and conclusive post-employment medical assessment, coupled with the lapse of time and petitioner’s failure to comply with the company-designated physician’s recommendations, precluded the accrual of a cause of action for disability benefits.

The Court affirmed the CA’s decision reversing the PVA award for full disability benefits and denying the claim for attorney’s fees.
The ruling emphasized that allegations of work-related disability must be supported by competent evidence and that any benefits cannot be granted based on mere presumptions or speculative diagnoses.

Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits for a work-related hypertensive cardiovascular condition on the basis that respondent failed to provide the requisite post-employment medical examination.
Whether the filing of the claim for disability benefits was premature given that petitioner was yet to undergo the additional medical assessments necessary to determine a final disability rating.
Whether the absence of a proper and timely post-employment medical evaluation bars petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed benefits under the POEA-SEC.