Title
Paringit vs. Global Gateway Crewing Services, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 217123
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2019
Seafarer Paringit, diagnosed with work-related cardiovascular illnesses, sought disability benefits after employer delayed surgery approval; SC ruled in his favor, granting permanent total disability benefits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217123)

Background of Employment and Initial Medical Condition

On June 1, 2010, Paringit entered into a six-month employment contract with Mid-South Ship and Crew Management, Inc. He was employed on a Panamanian vessel with a specified salary and benefits. Before deployment, Paringit underwent a pre-employment medical examination disclosing his history of high blood pressure, but he was declared fit for duty.

Development of Medical Issues

In October 2011, Paringit began experiencing fatigue and observed blood in his stool. Following a visit to the dock in Las Palmas, Spain, he was admitted to a hospital for severe medical issues, including cardiac insufficiency, severe anemia, and renal dysfunction, leading to his eventual medical repatriation to Manila on February 9, 2012.

Post-Employment Medical Evaluations

After his return to the Philippines, Paringit was admitted to YGEIA Medical Center where further evaluations diagnosed him with multiple cardiovascular conditions, including congestive heart failure. The company-designated physician, Dr. Quetulio, acknowledged his health issues and recommended regular follow-ups and potential open-heart surgery.

Legal Proceedings and Labor Arbiter's Decision

On June 11, 2012, Paringit filed a complaint against the respondents for medical expenses and disability claims. The Labor Arbiter found that Paringit's medical conditions were work-related and granted him a total and permanent disability benefit of $60,000, alongside attorney's fees. This decision was appealed by the respondents to the National Labor Relations Commission.

Findings of the National Labor Relations Commission

On January 31, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed Labor Arbiter Savari’s decision, confirming the work-related nature of Paringit’s illnesses. The respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied on March 27, 2013.

Reversal by Court of Appeals

Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, which on September 11, 2014, reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court of Appeals argued that Paringit failed to consult a third physician regarding his treatment while highlighting the timing of his complaint filing as premature.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

Paringit sought a review of the Court of Appeals' ruling, arguing the erroneous reliance on the company-designated physician's assessment as well as the presumption of work-relatedness of his illness that he believed entitled him to the disability benefits. In opposition, the respondents maintained that Paringit did not prove his condition was work-related and highlighted his choice for alternative treatment.

Supreme Court's Evaluation

The Supreme Court evaluated whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor tribunals&#

...continue reading

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