Title
Menez vs. Status Maritime Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 227523
Decision Date
Aug 29, 2018
Seafarer's death from leukemia deemed non-compensable due to lack of work-related evidence, failure to undergo post-employment medical exam, and death occurring post-contract.
death benefits
reimbursement of medical expenses
reporting requirements

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227523)

Parties, Claims, and Applicable Court Rules

Petitioner filed her claims before the Labor Arbiter on April 14, 2010 for nonpayment of: death benefits of US$60,000.00 (plus US$7,000.00 each for the three minor children), reimbursement of medical expenses, US$1,000.00 burial expenses, P500,000.00 moral damages, P500,000.00 exemplary damages, P500,000.00 compensatory damages, and ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees. The proceedings were under the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction for labor and overseas employment claims, with subsequent appellate review to the NLRC, then to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 65 petition, and finally to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

Employment and Medical History Leading to the Claim

Jonathan was hired on February 20, 2009 by Status Maritime Corporation, a manning agency deploying Filipino seafarers for its foreign principal Naftotrade Shipping and Commercial S.A. He was assigned as second engineer of M/V Naftocement, with a basic monthly salary of US$1,000.00 for six months. After passing pre-employment medical examination and being declared fit for sea service, Jonathan was deployed and embarked on M/V Naftocement II on February 25, 2009. The CA’s factual narration described his engineering duties and continuous on-call exposure, including twenty-four hours a day monitoring of the engine’s condition. It further stated that Jonathan experienced symptoms while onboard, including dizziness and nausea due to long hours, and physical manifestations such as redness of the eyes and purple patches on the skin, as well as bleeding gums, prolonged nosebleed, and severe urinary and gastrointestinal hemorrhage, which were allegedly known to the ship’s master but allegedly not entered in the ship’s logbook.

Repatriation, Lack of Post-Employment Examination, and Subsequent Diagnosis

Jonathan disembarked on September 11, 2009 and arrived in the Philippines on September 12, 2009. After repatriation, he reportedly did not submit to a post-employment medical examination, anticipating another deployment. His condition later worsened. Petitioner brought him to Dr. Brian Antonio T. Togle, an internist-nephrologist. Laboratory and ultrasound results interpreted by Dr. Manuel M. Arboleda showed borderline and small cystic findings and were negative for urinary tract stone or obstruction; medication was prescribed for one week. On October 29, 2009, Jonathan was admitted at The Doctors’ Hospital, Inc. for gum bleeding and redness of the eye, and examinations revealed acute myelogenous leukemia, with recommendation for bone marrow aspiration. He was discharged the same day and continued recuperation and medicines at home. On November 4, 2009, he was again admitted to Bacolod Our Lady of Mercy Specialty Hospital for epigastric pain, where he was diagnosed with conditions including upper GI bleed and acute myelogenous leukemia. Jonathan died on November 11, 2009.

Labor Arbiter Ruling in Favor of Petitioner

Petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter on April 14, 2010. After mandatory conferences without settlement, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on September 10, 2010 ordering respondents, jointly and severally, to pay death benefits and burial allowance, and to reimburse medical expenses, with attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed other claims for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter’s approach, as later characterized by the appellate tribunals, essentially anchored liability on the fact that Jonathan passed the pre-employment medical examination, was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia after repatriation, and died shortly thereafter.

NLRC and Court of Appeals Disposition Denying the Claim

Respondents appealed to the NLRC, arguing that (1) Jonathan died after the effectivity of his employment contract; (2) the illness causing his death was not proven work-related; (3) the illness was undetected during his pre-employment medical examination; (4) cancer is not judicially ruled to be work-related; and (5) Jonathan failed to comply with mandatory post-employment medical examinations. The NLRC, in a decision dated December 30, 2010, reversed and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 29, 2011. Petitioner then filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC. The CA held that petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence compliance with Section 20(A) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, because she failed to show that Jonathan’s death was work-related. The CA also held that Jonathan violated Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC by failing to submit to a post-employment medical examination within three days from repatriation.

The Issue Framed for Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court framed the essential issue as whether Jonathan’s death was compensable under the 2000 POEA-SEC.

Standard of Review Under Rule 45 and Its Application

The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. It rejected petitioner’s attempt to present compensability as turning on factual matters. It emphasized that under Rule 45, the Court examined only questions of law. It reiterated that it did not reweigh evidence, reevaluate credibility, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, especially where such findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, it treated the CA’s and NLRC’s factual findings—particularly those regarding noncompliance with the post-employment medical examination requirement and the lack of proof of work-relatedness—as binding.

Noncompliance with Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC

The Court found that petitioner failed to justify Jonathan’s noncompliance with the requirement that the seafarer must appear before the company-designated physician after repatriation. It quoted Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, which provided that upon sign-off for medical treatment the seafarer could receive sickness allowance, but required the seafarer to submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon return, except when physically incapacitated, and that failure to comply would result in forfeiture of entitlement to the benefits mentioned. The Court recognized that the rule was not absolute. However, it noted that petitioner failed to provide any reason for Jonathan’s failure to report within three days from repatriation. It reasoned that if Jonathan had already been experiencing bleeding gums, prolonged nosebleed, and severe hemorrhage even before repatriation, then it was imperative to report immediately upon arrival so that a company-designated physician could examine him.

In support, the Court invoked Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag, holding that ignoring the reporting rule would open the floodgates to seafarers claiming disability benefits without employers’ ability to determine the cause due to the passage of time, and would unfairly deprive employers of protection against unrelated disability claims.

Work-Relatedness Was Not Proven by Substantial Evidence

Even if Jonathan’s failure to report were excused, the Court held that petitioner still failed to prove that the death was work-related and compensable. It relied on the rule stated in Yap v. Rover Maritime Services Corp., which required proof that the death was (1) work-related and (2) occurred during the term of the contract. The Court concluded that petitioner failed to establish by substantial evidence the causal connection between Jonathan’s work as second engineer and acute myelogenous leukemia, which was the cause of death.

To underscore the evidentiary deficiency, the Court invoked Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Beneficiaries of the Late Second Officer Anthony S. Allas. In Klaveness, the Court had rejected a claim because the claimant failed to provide substantial evidence that the seafarer’s work increased the risk of acquiring the alleged cancer, and because painful urination was non-specific and could not, without substantial evidence, be concluded to have been due to cancer. In the present case, the Supreme Court similarly held that in the absence of medical reports or relevant documents showing development or acquisition of the illness during onboard service, petitioner’s theory remained unsupported.

Absence of Onboard Records and the “Mere Allegation” Problem

The Court adopted the CA’s observation that no complaint, medical report, or relevant document was presented regarding illness supposedly contracted onboard M/V Naftocement. It agreed that Jonathan’s symptoms while at sea, as described in the record, were not supported by contemporaneous documentation to establish that acute myelogenous leukemia was acquired or developed during employment. It further endorsed the CA’s explanation that mere allegations did not amount to proof and were essentially self-serving and devoid of evidentiary weight. It also noted that the Labor Arbiter had drawn a non-sequitur conclusion by reasoning that since Jonathan passed pre-employment examination and was diagnosed after repatriation, the illness must have been work-related. The Supreme Court reg

...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