G.R. No. 194490-91 - Transocean Ship Management , Inc. vs. Vedad

Inocencio B. Vedad was employed as a seafarer (second engineer) by Transocean Ship Management (Phils.), Inc., a local manning agency for its principal, General Marine Services Corporation.
His employment under the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) was for a 10‑month period from June 1, 2005 to March 1, 2006.
Carlos S. Salinas, the President of Transocean, played a significant role in the management and operations of the agency.

Prior to deployment, Inocencio underwent the required pre‑employment medical examination (PEME) and obtained a “clean bill of health,” which was later scrutinized in assessing his claim.
Inocencio was subsequently deployed on board M/V Invicta, where he developed symptoms including fever, sore throat, and pain in his right ear.
The vessel docked at Port Louis, Mauritius on February 3, 2006, where initial medical evaluation was performed, followed by a re‑examination in Tanjung Priok, Indonesia on February 16, 2006, prior to his repatriation on February 19, 2006 for further evaluation and treatment.

After repatriation, Inocencio immediately reported to the company‑designated doctor, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, at the NGC Medical Clinic in Manila.
On May 10, 2006, Inocencio underwent a tonsillectomy. Histopathological reports later revealed a diagnosis of undifferentiated carcinoma of the right tonsil and chronic totlicular tonsillitis with actinomycosis of the left tonsil.
Dr. Cruz advised the need for chemotherapy and a treatment regimen estimated at PhP 500,000—a cost that Transocean and General Marine had promised to shoulder.

Owing to the failure of Transocean and General Marine to provide the promised funds for his treatment, Inocencio filed a complaint on July 17, 2006 before the Labor Arbiter, seeking permanent total disability benefits and sickness allowance.
On August 10, 2007, the Labor Arbiter awarded Inocencio USD 60,000 as permanent total disability benefits plus 10% attorney’s fees, basing the award on Section 20 of the POEA-SEC by presuming his tonsil condition to be work‑related pending further assessment.

The NLRC, in its May 29, 2008 Decision, vacated the Labor Arbiter’s award of permanent total disability benefits and instead granted a sickness allowance equivalent to 120 days (or four months’ salary, amounting to USD 4,616) plus the payment/reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred by Inocencio.
The NLRC based its ruling on the June 9, 2006 medical certification from Dr. Cruz declaring Inocencio’s tonsil cancer as not work‑related, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employee.
The Court of Appeals (CA) rendered its decision on July 28, 2010, modifying the NLRC ruling by setting aside the sickness allowance yet affirming the reimbursement of Inocencio’s medical expenses, while also relying on the evidentiary certification of the company‑designated doctor.

The case is anchored on specific provisions of the POEA-SEC, particularly Section 20, which mandates that upon repatriation for medical treatment, seafarers are entitled to a sickness allowance (up to 120 days) pending the company‑designated physician’s determination regarding work‑relatedness.
The policy underpinning these provisions is to ensure that seafarers, who sacrifice their health and time away from their families, have sufficient support to meet their basic needs when incapacitated by illness or injury.

Petitioners (Transocean, Salinas, and General Marine) argued that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering payment/reimbursement of medical expenses.
Inocencio contended that the factual findings of the NLRC and CA were not substantially supported by evidence, that his sickness allowance and disability benefits should be granted, and that the CA erred in not awarding attorney’s fees.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering Transocean, Salinas, and General Marine to pay or reimburse Inocencio’s medical expenses.
Whether the factual findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals regarding the work‑relatedness of Inocencio’s illness were supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the failure of Inocencio to obtain a second opinion from a physician of his choice has any bearing on his entitlement to benefits under the POEA‑SEC.
Whether a seafarer is still entitled to sickness allowance even if the employer‑designated doctor later certifies that the illness is not work‑related.
Whether the award of permanent total disability benefits is appropriate given the fact that the company‑designated physician found the illness not to be work‑related.