Title
De Vera vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 223246
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2019
Seafarer denied disability benefits after company doctors declared him fit; quitclaim upheld as valid, no attorney’s fees awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223246)

Overview of the Case

This case arises from Jan Frederick Pineda De Vera's petition for review, seeking to contest the rulings of the Court of Appeals that upheld the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which denied him total and permanent disability benefits following a medical issue while employed as a bar attendant on a vessel.

Employment and Medical History

De Vera was employed by United Philippine Lines, Inc., under a contract verified by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. He reported back pain while on duty, underwent medical assessment, was referred to physicians, and was ultimately deemed fit to work after a series of treatments. Contrastingly, a physician he subsequently consulted declared him unfit for work.

Labor Arbiter's Initial Ruling

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of De Vera, awarding him total and permanent disability benefits after concluding that he was unable to resume work due to his medical condition, despite the assessments of the company-designated physicians stating he was fit for work.

NLRC's Reversal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, citing concerns over the medical opinion rendered by De Vera’s physician, which was based on a single consultation compared to the multiple assessments by the company-designated physicians. The NLRC also emphasized that De Vera executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim shortly after his fit-for-work declaration, essentially admitting to the correctness of the company’s physicians' assessments.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s findings, highlighting that De Vera's claim was premature as he had not challenged the company-designated physicians' assessment adequately by engaging an independent third doctor, as required under the POEA-SEC. The appellate court further ruled that De Vera failed to convey his disagreement with the medical assessment prior to filing his complaint.

Legal Issues Raised by De Vera

De Vera argued that he should be entitled to total and permanent disability compensation and contended that obtaining an independent medical opinion was not mandatory. Furthermore, he challenged the validity of the Deed of Release and Quitclaim, alleging that it was executed under duress.

Court's Ruling

The Court found De Vera’s assertions unmeritorious, establishing that his entitlement to disability benefits is governed by both the applicable Philippine laws and the contract provisions contained in the POEA-SEC. The court ruled that the appropriate procedures were not followed—especially the failure to seek a third-party medical evaluation—which precluded his claim for benefits. The assessment made by the company-designated physicians was upheld as valid and credible, especially given the supporti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.