Title
Antiquina vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 168922
Decision Date
Apr 13, 2011
Engineer injured on vessel refused surgery, claimed higher benefits under disputed agreements; courts upheld standard contract award, denying belated evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21486)

Employment and Injury Details

Wilfredo Antiquina was hired in February 2000 under a standard employment contract approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) for a duration of nine months, with a salary of US$936 per month. He started working on March 1, 2000, but suffered a significant injury on September 22, 2000, when he fractured his left arm while performing maintenance on the vessel. After receiving initial treatment in Romania, he was repatriated to the Philippines and diagnosed with an undisplaced fracture.

Medical Treatment and Decision on Surgery

Upon return to the Philippines, Antiquina underwent further medical assessments. He initially received care from Dr. Robert Lim, who prescribed physical therapy. Despite multiple sessions, Antiquina felt his arm had not healed properly. A second evaluation by Dr. Tiong Sam Lim suggested a more invasive procedure, a bone graft, which Antiquina ultimately refused due to concerns about the prolonged recovery period associated with it.

Claims for Benefits

Following his refusal to undergo surgery, Antiquina filed a complaint against MMC and Masterbulk for various benefits, including permanent disability and sickness allowance. He based his claim on both his employment contract and the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with AMOSUP, arguing that he was entitled to significant compensation due to his medical assessments indicating permanent disability.

Respondents' Defense

The respondents challenged Antiquina's claims, arguing they were rendered premature due to his refusal to undergo the recommended medical procedure. They asserted that he was obligated to submit to treatment to establish the extent of his disability, which was not assessed due to his non-compliance. Additionally, they contended he had received payment for his alleged sickness allowance.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

In a prior ruling on September 27, 2002, the Labor Arbiter favored Antiquina, awarding him the claimed sickness allowance and permanent medical unfitness benefits of US$80,000 under the CBA, alongside attorney's fees. The respondents contested this decision, citing lack of evidence for said employment benefits and aiming for its reversal.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals modified the Labor Arbiter's decision on May 31, 2005, holding that the evidence presented by the respondents regarding payment of sickness allowances had been valid. It concluded that Antiquina could not substantiate his claim for the full amount of permanent medical unfitness benefits under the CBA, due to his failure to present proof of CBA membership with AMOSUP. Nonetheless, the court recognized the work-related injury and awarded him a reduced compensation of US$7,465, based on his disability assessment.

Motion for Reconsideration

Antiquina filed a motion for reconsideration, incorporating additional evidence to support his claims, including alleged copies of the CBA and contributions to AMOSUP. The Court of Appeals dismissed his motion, ruling that the late submissions violated due process rights of the respondents and did not warrant reconsideration of the previous ruling.

Supreme Court Evaluation

Antiquina subsequently sought a review at the Supreme Court, citing bias in the appellate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.