Title
Junio vs. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 220657
Decision Date
Mar 16, 2022
Seafarer Celestino Junio suffered work-related eye injuries, was medically repatriated, and denied treatment. SC ruled his condition compensable, awarding disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220657)

Petitioner's Employment and Incident

Celestino was employed by Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. for 16 years, and he entered into a nine-month employment contract on January 24, 2011, to work as a Fitter on board the vessel MCT Monte Rosa. He was declared fit for work after a pre-medical examination before deployment. However, on June 15, 2011, he suffered an eye injury from a detached hose while performing maintenance work, and his requests for immediate medical attention were denied.

Medical Evaluation and Diagnosis

After further complications and a collapse on September 11, 2011, Celestino was referred to an offshore physician in the United States, where diagnostic imaging revealed a partial tear in the posterior retina, among other conditions. Following these findings, he was medically repatriated to the Philippines on September 21, 2011, but was not referred to a company-dispatched physician upon his return.

Claim for Benefits

On February 10, 2012, Celestino filed a complaint seeking payment for disability benefits, sickness allowance, and damages against his employers, claiming those injuries were work-related. The respondents contended that he finished his contract and denied that his medical conditions arose from work-related incidents, asserting that no proper medical examination was requested within the mandated timeframe after his repatriation.

Initial Rulings

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Celestino's complaint, citing non-compliance with the mandatory three-day post-employment medical examination requirement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), however, later reversed this decision, recognizing that Celestino had sustained work-related injuries that warranted disability benefits.

Court of Appeals Decision

The respondents subsequently sought a petition for certiorari at the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled against the NLRC's decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's dismissal based on the purported failure to adhere to reporting and examination protocols.

Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court found merit in Celestino's petition, stating that the issues regarding his medical repatriation and compliance with mandatory reporting requirements were questions of fact deserving review. The Court noted that Celestino was still within the duration of his employment contract when he was repatriated and emphasized that the absence of pertinent medical assessments from the company-designated physician—despite clear indicators of incapacity—was an infringement of Celestino's rights under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Findings on Medical Condition and Reporting

The Court substantiated that Celestino was indeed medically repatriated and complied with the reporting requirement under Section 20 of the POEA-SEC by seeking medical attention within two days of his return. The employer’s failure to refer him to a medical examination post-repatriatio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.