Title
Pacio vs. Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 225847
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2019
Seafarer's claim for permanent total disability benefits denied due to pre-existing hypertension, procedural non-compliance, and lack of work-related aggravation evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120223)

Antecedent Facts

Pacio underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) before his hiring, revealing a pre-existing condition of hypertension for which he was prescribed medication. Despite being declared fit for sea duty, he acknowledged the risks associated with this pre-existing condition through an Oath of Undertaking, which included provisions regarding the non-compensability of any disabling illness resulting from his hypertension.

On December 10, 2012, Pacio experienced high blood pressure and dizziness while on duty, leading to his repatriation from Romania and subsequent medical evaluation in the Philippines. Medical examinations revealed various health issues including hypertension but concluded that they were not work-related. Despite this finding, the respondents covered the costs of Pacio's medical evaluations until significant time passed without further communication from him, which the respondents interpreted as acceptance of their findings.

Procedural History

Pacio filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which was initially resolved in his favor by the Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA). The NLRC affirmed this decision, but upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) found grounds to reverse the NLRC's ruling, stating that the previous labor tribunals had disregarded relevant labor laws and contracts.

The Issue

The core issue pertains to whether the CA erred in its reversal of the previous decisions favoring Pacio's claim for disability benefits. Pacio contended that his medical condition, allegedly aggravated by his employment duties, warranted disability compensation. In contrast, the respondents argued that Pacio’s disability was a result of his pre-existing condition rather than any exacerbation from his work.

Arguments of the Parties

Pacio maintained that he was fit for duty at the time of his employment and that his health deteriorated due to the rigorous demands of the job. The respondents countered that Pacio was fully aware of his hypertension and voluntarily accepted the risks, including executing documents asserting that any resulting illness from it would not be compensable. They further contended that Pacio failed to report his medical condition properly and neglected to seek appropriate medical attention following the initial evaluation.

Ruling of the Court

In reviewing the case, the Court highlighted that it generally refrains from reevaluating factual findings unless there are compelling reasons to do so, particularly when lower tribunals’ conclusions conflict with those of the CA. The CA’s ruling was upheld, emphasizing that Pacio inadequately demonstrated that his work duties caused or aggravated his hypertension. Moreover, the absence of a collective bargaining agreement necessitated reliance on the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) and the Labor Code, particularly concerning the definition and process for claiming total and permanent disability benefits.

Compliance with Legal Requirements

The Court referenced various statutory p

...continue reading

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