Title
Blue Manila, Inc. vs. Jamias
Case
G.R. No. 230919
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2021
Seafarer Jamias, diagnosed with a herniated disc during employment, was awarded $80K in disability benefits after the Supreme Court ruled his ailment compensable under POEA-SEC, deeming it permanent due to the company doctor's incomplete assessment.
disability benefits
back ailment
employment contract
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230919)

Employment Arrangement, Repatriation, and Relevant Medical Events

Jamias was rehired in February 2011 as Cook AB by Blue Manila under a six-month contract covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines and Wagenborg. After passing the mandatory Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), Jamias boarded M/V Kwintebank. During his stint, he asserted that his work required constant strenuous manual labor involving pushing, lifting, and carrying heavy food provisions. In August 2011, he experienced coughing that triggered pain in his umbilical area. When he lifted two sacks of potatoes, he felt excruciating pain as if something snapped at his waist. Within days, he complained of abdominal pain in the umbilical area with extension to his left side. A ship captain ordered his transfer to Telemark Hospital in Norway, where he was diagnosed with constipation and umbilical hernia. He was signed off and repatriated to Manila on August 24, 2011, where he was admitted at Manila Doctor’s Hospital.

Company Examination and Discovery of Back Symptoms

On August 25, 2011, the company-designated physician ordered an MRI of the lumbosacral spine. The radiographic report showed “Disc desiccation and diffuse disc bulge with focal broad-based central disc protrusion causing mild central canal and mild left foraminal stenoses, L5-S1. Degenerative osseous changes.” Jamias later underwent surgery for his umbilical hernia on September 24, 2011, and he reported that the abdominal pain cleared. He nevertheless maintained that his lower back pain persisted. The company-designated physician dismissed the continuing pain as attributable to aging and issued a fit-to-work certification on November 12, 2011. Jamias then sought medical evaluation at the local manning office and, when allegedly asked to submit to a PEME, complied with a subsequent process.

Jamias’s Consultations, Dr. Runas’s Assessment, and the Arbitration Demand

Jamias wrote two letters in January 2012 asking for evaluation of his back condition but received no reply, prompting consultation with Dr. Renato P. Runas, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Runas assessed Jamias’s lower back pain as due to the presence of a “central broad-based disc herniation,” described as Grade 8 disability under the POEA-Contract framework, explaining that the impediment involved moderate rigidity or loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk. Considering Jamias’s duties as a cook, Dr. Runas concluded that the impediment rendered him unfit to resume work aboard the vessel. Jamias initiated a Voluntary Arbitration claim and demanded disability benefits. The petitioners refused, insisting that prior to repatriation Jamias’s only complaint involved abdominal pain, not back pain, and that his later back condition was not disclosed during his subsequent PEME.

Voluntary Arbitrators’ Proceedings and the Third-Doctor Referral

Because the parties disputed liability and the nature of the back ailment, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment directed that Jamias be examined by a third doctor. The parties submitted three nominees, and they selected Dr. Samuel M. Grozman. The PVA narrowed the medical issue for the third doctor to whether Jamias’s broad-based herniated disc at L5-S1 causing low back pain was a necessary consequence or even remotely related to Jamias’s umbilical hernia, which had already been medically resolved.

Third Doctor’s Medical Certificate and the Award of Disability Benefits

Dr. Grozman’s medical certificate dated August 2, 2013 reported that Jamias was seen in July 2013 for low back pain, that the patient claimed the pain began in August 2011, and that on examination Jamias exhibited severe limitation of truncal flexion and extension. Dr. Grozman reiterated an impression of “low back pain with radiculopathy 2 to degenerative disc disease, L5-S1,” and stated that he confirmed the diagnosis with a repeat MRI and EMG/NCV study. Addressing the limited question posed by the PVA, Dr. Grozman stated that, to his knowledge, there was no reported literature that an umbilical hernia could cause a broad-based herniated disc, noting that his certificate was issued upon the request of the patient.

Despite this, the PVA awarded Jamias US$80,000.00 (or its peso equivalent at the time of payment) as disability benefits, plus ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees, and dismissed other claims.

The CA’s Reversal and the Rationale for a Third-Doctor Disability Grading

Petitioners sought review before the Court of Appeals, challenging both the PVA’s award and the denial of their motion for reconsideration. In its September 9, 2016 Decision, the CA ruled that although Jamias was medically repatriated due to umbilical hernia, petitioners could not deny that Jamias had complained of back ailment. The CA observed that within three days after repatriation Jamias was examined by the company-designated physician, who immediately ordered a lumbosacral MRI showing disc desiccation, diffuse disc bulge, and stenoses at L5-S1. The CA treated the MRI results as contradicting petitioners’ claim that back ailment surfaced only later when Jamias requested reassessment in January 2012.

The CA also held that the PVA erred in limiting Dr. Grozman’s evaluation to the medical query whether the L5-S1 condition was a consequence or remotely related to umbilical hernia. It reasoned that the third doctor’s evaluation therefore did not satisfy the standard required under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the CBA for assessing the seafarer’s true condition. The CA further found that Dr. Grozman failed to provide a disability grading under the POEA-SEC schedule, which the CA regarded as essential for entitlement to disability benefits. Accordingly, the CA set aside the PVA award and ordered compliance with provisions on the appointment of a third doctor, directing that the third doctor’s assessment should be final and binding between the parties. When motions for reconsideration were denied on March 29, 2017, the CA clarified that no re-examination was needed because Dr. Grozman had already examined Jamias, and the third doctor need only provide a disability grading assessment.

Parties’ Positions in the Petitions

In G.R. No. 230919, petitioners argued that Jamias’s claim relied on a back ailment allegedly suffered after the term of employment and thus fell outside Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. They maintained that a “broad-based herniated disc” was degenerative and part of the natural aging process. They also contended that the CA could not infer work-relatedness merely because the company-designated physician ordered a lumbosacral MRI within three days after repatriation, and they insisted that Jamias never complained of back pain while on board. Petitioners further argued that even if compensability were recognized, Dr. Runas assessed only Grade 8 disability, which would limit recovery to the maximum contract amount multiplied by the stated disability percentage, and that the CA’s requirement of further disability grading prejudiced them because Jamias’s condition could have worsened.

In G.R. No. 230932, Jamias insisted that the CA correctly upheld compensability and that, even if the third doctor failed to issue a disability grading, he remained entitled to full disability benefits. He argued that the existence of his illness was confirmed by Dr. Grozman, and that the company-designated physician’s failure to make an assessment as to fitness to work or disability severity should lead the law to treat his temporary total disability as having progressed into total and permanent disability, making a later disability grading immaterial to the conclusion on entitlement.

Legal Framework Applied by the Court

The Court framed the governing rule on compensability by distinguishing two scenarios: disability arising from an injury or illness that manifests or is discovered during the term of the seafarer’s contract, typically while the seafarer remains on board; and disability arising from an illness that manifests or is discovered after the contract, i.e., after disembarkation. When the illness or injury fell under the first scenario, the procedure under Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC applied. The Court emphasized that the Section 20 (A) provisions were deemed incorporated in every seafarer’s contract and detailed the employer’s obligations regarding medical treatment, sickness allowance, post-employment medical examination within three working days upon return, and the establishment of disability based solely on disability gradings under Section 32.

The Court’s Reasoning on Compensability and the Role of the PEME and MRI

The Court rejected petitioners’ attempt to confine liability solely to the umbilical hernia that triggered repatriation. It held that nothing in Section 20 (A) of the POEA-SEC, or the CBA, limited medical attention after repatriation to the precise cause of medical repatriation. The Court pointed out that the company-designated physician attended to Jamias on August 25, 2011, one day after arrival in Manila, and ordered an MRI of the lumbosacral spine. It characterized as untenable petitioners’ characterization of that MRI as merely routine, explaining that the logical inference was that Jamias had already brought to the physician’s attention low back pain and the physician had chosen the MRI for that complaint. It further held that any illness complained of and/or diagnosed during the mandatory PEME within three days upon repatriation was deemed existing during the term of employment, and that employers remained liable accordingly.

The Court likewise rejected petitioners’ reliance on incomplete shipboard documentation or the offshore hospital records. It stressed that the mandatory PEME was required precisely because offshore hospital

...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.

About Privacy Terms