Title
Lumagas vs. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and A.P. Moller A/S
Case
G.R. No. 256137
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2024
Lumagas claimed disability benefits after suffering health issues aboard a Maersk vessel. The court upheld partial and permanent benefits due to work-related illness, validating the company's physician's assessment.
disability benefits
labor law
partial disability

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256137)

Factual Background

Lumagas had served Maersk-Filipinas and A.P. Moller for about twelve years prior to his last deployment. Before that deployment, in December 2014, he underwent medical tests required by his agency and was declared “fit to work,” after the employers completed the process, including a determination of fitness for sea service. He was fifty-seven years old at the time he was declared fit.

During his employment aboard the vessel, Lumagas worked under strenuous conditions typical of seafarers. His duties required extensive electrical maintenance and monitoring of critical ship systems. His responsibilities included maintenance of all electrical motors, switchboards, fire detectors and the fire alarm system, refrigeration in the engine room, air-conditioning units, and refrigerated cargo containers. He also managed navigational lights and equipment, batteries connected to onboard machineries, and the cargo and engine room cranes’ electrical system. He performed routine maintenance for main engine alarms and accompanied the Chief Engineer during checks of the vessel. His presence in the engine room was required during maneuvering to address possible electrical emergencies, and he assisted in watch-keeping and electrical problems involving the ship’s Engineer and Deck Officer.

On May 7, 2015, while fixing electrical connections at the main engine room, Lumagas experienced extreme chest pains and inability to breathe, without any accompanying “fever, cough, or palpitation.” Immediate medical intervention was not possible because the vessel was in open seas. Lumagas was able to seek medical attention only on May 11, 2015, when the vessel docked in the Republic of Congo. Early laboratory work revealed a blood clotting disorder and abnormally high blood pressure. He was prescribed medication and advised to continue treatment in the Philippines. The vessel Master recommended repatriation.

Lumagas was medically repatriated on May 16, 2015. Upon arrival, a company-designated physician referred him for laboratory tests and procedures at Cardinal Santos Medical Center. On May 28, 2015, the company physician issued a confidential report diagnosing Lumagas with “Deep Vein Thrombosis; Ischemic Heart Disease; [and] Protein-S Deficiency.” A follow-up report later included consideration of “[Pulmonary] Embolism” and advised ruling out Ischemic Heart Disease. During consultations, Lumagas disclosed that he had been previously diagnosed as a Hepatitis B carrier as early as 1982. On June 18, 2015, subsequent laboratory testing indicated slightly decreased ProTime, normal partial thrombosis time, protein C and anti-thrombin, and elevated D-dimer, findings interpreted as suggesting an abnormality in the blood clotting system. The company physician then referred him to a hematologist and advised continuation of medication.

On July 3, 2015, when Maersk-Filipinas and A.P. Moller inquired into Lumagas’s condition, the company physician issued a disability grading suggestion: if entitled to disability, the suggested disability grading was “Grade 7 moderate [or residual] disorder.” Lumagas continued treatment and further diagnostic procedures until October 13, 2015, when the company physician issued a final disability grading of Grade 7 moderate [or residual] disorder, which ended the treatment with the company physician.

After the company physician’s treatment ended, Lumagas consulted Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Tan). On December 9, 2015, Dr. Tan concluded that Lumagas’s illness “effectively[,] permanently and totally prohibits Lumagas to work and attend to the demanding nature of his work as a [seafarer].” On December 14, 2015, Lumagas filed the complaint before the LA for the payment of total and permanent disability benefits.

Labor Arbiter Proceedings and Ruling

On May 31, 2016, the LA ruled in favor of Lumagas. The LA ordered Maersk-Filipinas and A.P. Moller to pay total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees. The LA reasoned that both the company-designated physician and Lumagas’s physician found that Lumagas suffered from a heart or cardiovascular disease and that a reasonable causal relationship existed between Lumagas’s illness and his job as Electrical Engineer onboard the vessel.

The LA considered Lumagas’s twelve years of employment with the respondents, the strenuous demands of his job, the high-fat, high-cholesterol, low-fiber foods he was constrained to eat while onboard, and the typical rigors at sea, including stress and strain from being away from family. The LA found that the conditions under the POEA-SEC for an occupational disease and the resulting disability to be compensable were satisfied because the illness occurred while Lumagas was on duty. The LA awarded Lumagas all money claims sought, except for moral and exemplary damages for lack of basis.

NLRC Ruling and the Disability Grade Issue

Maersk-Filipinas and A.P. Moller appealed to the NLRC. On October 17, 2016, the NLRC partially granted the appeal and modified the LA ruling. It held that Lumagas was entitled only to permanent and partial disability benefits, based on the company-designated physician’s Grade 7 disability grading.

The NLRC upheld the company physician’s final disability rating, emphasizing Lumagas’s failure to comply with the conflict resolution procedure in the POEA-SEC. The NLRC ruled that, when conflict arose between the company-designated physician’s assessment and the seafarer’s physician, a third doctor jointly agreed upon by both parties was required to make a final and binding determination. Because Lumagas did not observe this procedure, the NLRC treated the company-designated physician’s assessment as final.

The NLRC modified the award by ordering Maersk-Filipinas and A.P. Moller, jointly and severally, to pay Lumagas USD 20,900.00 as permanent and partial disability benefits. The NLRC denied the remainder of the awards sustained by the LA. A dissenting commissioner would have dismissed the appeal and affirmed the LA’s finding of permanent and total disability, reasoning that neither assessment was binding on the NLRC and that more than 240 days had lapsed while Lumagas remained incapacitated.

CA Proceedings

Both parties separately sought reconsideration of the NLRC decision. The NLRC denied both motions for reconsideration in a January 27, 2017 resolution. The parties then filed separate petitions for certiorari before the CA.

On September 19, 2019, the CA denied both petitions and affirmed the NLRC decision and resolution. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s conclusion that Lumagas was entitled only to permanent and partial disability benefits based on the company-designated physician’s Grade 7 grading. The CA observed that Lumagas’s illness was finally assessed on October 13, 2015, and that he did not contest the assessment before filing his claim for permanent and total disability on October 22, 2015, thereby violating Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC. The CA treated strict compliance as mandatory, rendering the company physician’s assessment final.

The CA also affirmed that Lumagas’s condition was work-related and compensable. It held that substantial evidence supported a reasonable connection between Lumagas’s illness and his rigorous duties as an Electrical Engineer. The CA additionally upheld attorney’s fees and sickness allowance, concluding that both the NLRC and LA had sufficiently explained the bases for these monetary awards. The CA denied both parties’ motions for reconsideration in a February 23, 2021 resolution, prompting the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised in the Petitions

The threshold matter before the Supreme Court was whether Lumagas was entitled to disability benefits for a work-related illness or medical condition. If disability benefits were proper, the Court had to determine whether the extent of Lumagas’s disability was partial or total and permanent, and whether his other monetary claims were proper.

Maersk-Filipinas and A.P. Moller argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in allowing recovery of partial and permanent disability benefits. They asserted that Lumagas failed to prove a reasonable connection between his medical condition and his duties. They further contended that Lumagas was disqualified due to alleged knowing concealment of a preexisting diagnosis of Hepatitis B in his 2014 pre-employment medical examination (PEME). They also challenged attorney’s fees, arguing that Lumagas failed to adhere to the POEA-SEC conflict resolution procedure, and they contested sickness allowance on the ground that it had already been paid.

Lumagas, in his petition, argued that the company-designated physician’s assessment should not control because it lacked finality and definiteness and that he should have been allowed to seek a second opinion. He maintained that his own physician’s diagnosis should be used to determine the true nature of his disability, and he prayed for full benefits consistent with his physician’s finding of total and permanent disability.

Supreme Court’s Disposition

The Supreme Court denied both petitions for review on certiorari. It held that Lumagas was entitled to partial and permanent disability benefits in accordance with the Grade 7 disability grading issued by the company-designated physician. It likewise upheld the awards of attorney’s fees and sickness allowance granted by the NLRC and LA.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Work-Related Compensability

The Court treated compensability as essentially a factual matter. It reiterated that a Rule 45 petition, or a petition for review on certiorari, was not a proper vehicle for raising issues of fact because the Court generally reviewed only errors of law. It further emphasized that labor findings affirmed by the appellate court deserved great weight, respect, and even finality when supported by substantial evidence. It found no exception appl

...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