Title
Supreme Court
Perea vs. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 206178
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2017
Seafarer Perea sought disability benefits for hypertension and injuries sustained onboard. Courts ruled against him, citing lack of substantial evidence, compensability criteria, and compliance with POEA Contract obligations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206178)

Factual Background

On October 28, 2009, Perea signed his contract and was deployed on October 31, 2009. He experienced health issues while on board, specifically chest pains and difficulty breathing, which began on May 15, 2010. After a series of medical consultations, including treatment for a welding accident and evaluations for chest pain, he was diagnosed with multiple conditions but ultimately repatriated on June 1, 2010.

Medical Evaluations

Post-repatriation, Perea was seen by company-designated physicians, who performed extensive examinations and tests, including a coronary angiogram, which indicated that he did not have significant coronary artery disease. In contrast, another physician, Dr. Antonio C. Pascual, diagnosed him with uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease based solely on a singular consultation without laboratory corroboration. The opposing medical assessments became central to the dispute over Perea's fitness to work.

Administrative Proceedings

Perea filed a complaint against the respondents for various claims, including underpayment, permanent disability benefits, compensatory and moral damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint in February 2011, ruling that the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement had lapsed by the time Perea was repatriated, and emphasized that the POEA Contract's provisions governed the case.

National Labor Relations Commission Ruling

The National Labor Relations Commission upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision, emphasizing that Perea's prior undisclosed medical condition barred him from claiming benefits and that the evaluations by company-designated physicians were deemed more credible than those of Dr. Pascual.

Court of Appeals Decision

Perea's appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals, which concluded that to establish a compensable illness under the POEA Contract, substantial evidence needed to support claims of permanent disability, which Perea failed to provide. The appellate court supported the findings of the company-designated physicians, asserting extensive monitoring made their assessments more reliable.

Petition for Review to the Supreme Court

In his subsequent Petition for Review, Perea contested the findings that favored the company-designated physicians, particularly criticizing the National Labor Relations Commission’s reference to a non-issue regarding concealment of pre-existing conditions. He also claimed entitlement to his full sickness allowance, countering the assessment of his alleged unfitness due to hypertension.

Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court resolved several issues, primarily focusing on whether the National Labor Rela

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.