Title
Philsynergy Maritime, Inc. vs. Gallano, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 228504
Decision Date
Jun 6, 2018
A seafarer's work-aggravated stroke and hypertension, deemed compensable under POEA-SEC, led to permanent disability benefits after employer's medical assessment failed within statutory period.
seafarer
brain stroke
disability benefits
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167334)

Factual Background: Employment, PEME, and the Cerebrovascular Incident

Respondent was employed by petitioners for and in behalf of petitioners as Master on board M.V. Pearl Halo under a six-month contract dated September 21, 2012. Prior to deployment, respondent underwent the required pre-employment medical examination (PEME), where the company-designated physician declared him fit for sea duty. Respondent was then 62 years old, and he boarded the vessel on October 5, 2012.

On October 10, 2012, while performing his duties, respondent experienced sudden numbness on the left side of his body and noticed slurred speech. He received first aid aboard the vessel, and he allegedly improved after taking an Isordil tablet that he brought with him. The symptoms recurred the next day and did not improve despite a further Isordil dose. Respondent was then brought to a local hospital in Poro, New Caledonia, where he was confined for eleven (11) days and underwent physical therapy from October 15 to 21, 2012.

Diagnostic tests revealed a brain infarct. His CT scan showed “middle cerebral artery deep right infarct without associated hemorrhagic alteration,” while his MRI showed “ischemic cerebrovascular accident stroke ischemique, right middle deep lobe.” As a result, he was repatriated on October 23, 2012 for further medical treatment and was evaluated by a company-designated physician who diagnosed him with “Cerebrovascular Infarct Middle Cerebral Artery, Right and Hypertension.”

The company-designated physician declared the conditions to be not work-related, reasoning that the risk factors for cerebrovascular infarct included hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, smoking, lifestyle, dyslipidemia, family history, age, and sex, and that the cause of hypertension was multifactorial. After follow-up check-ups, the company-designated physician issued a Medical Report dated March 9, 2013. The report noted that respondent’s treadmill stress test was normal and his blood pressure was controlled. It opined that the cardiovascular condition had stabilized but nonetheless advised continued home exercises/rehabilitation and medication, with a directive to undergo repeat laboratory examination by April 4, 2013. The record, however, did not show that the directives were complied with.

Petitioners’ Reliance on Alleged Concealment and Respondent’s Demand for Disability Benefits

In a letter dated March 6, 2013, the company-designated Cardiologist explained that Isordil is a medication used to treat angina (chest pain). The Cardiologist opined that even if respondent denied maintenance medication, possession of Isordil suggested respondent “may be experiencing some symptoms for which he was given that medications previously.”

Respondent, in contrast, insisted that his physical condition did not improve after suffering a brain stroke while on board the vessel in the performance of his duties, and that more than 120 days had lapsed from repatriation. He then sought payment of total disability benefits, which petitioners refused.

Commencement of the Labor Dispute and the Parties’ Competing Theories

On April 24, 2013, respondent filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC Case No. (M) NCR-04-06135-13. Petitioners denied liability, asserting that respondent fraudulently concealed a previously diagnosed medical condition and was thus disqualified from benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Petitioners anchored this defense on respondent’s possession of Isordil during the voyage and on the alleged failure to disclose such condition during PEME.

Petitioners also argued that even if concealment were not established, they were not liable under the CBA because respondent’s disability allegedly did not result from an accident, and that the illnesses (Cerebrovascular Infarct Middle Cerebral Artery, Right and Hypertension) had been declared by the company-designated physician as not work-related. Petitioners further claimed that reimbursement of medical expenses had already been paid and that damages and attorney’s fees lacked factual and legal basis.

In support of his claim, respondent sought an independent specialist opinion from Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, a cardiologist from the Philippine Heart Center. In a Medical Certificate dated July 1, 2013, Dr. Vicaldo declared respondent’s illnesses—hypertensive cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease—to be work aggravated/related, assigning an impediment rating of Impediment Grade VII (41.80%). The independent physician justified the assessment on the need for maintenance medication to control hypertension and prevent future cardiovascular complications, as well as lifestyle changes, and concluded that respondent was unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling: No Concealment; Work-Related Disability; Total and Permanent Liability

In a Decision dated October 31, 2013, the Labor Arbiter ruled for respondent and ordered petitioners to pay US$60,000.00 in accordance with the 2010 POEA-SEC, plus ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees.

The Labor Arbiter held that the CBA’s disability-benefit provision was inapplicable because it covered disabilities resulting from accidental injury. It rejected fraudulent concealment for lack of proof that respondent was already suffering from high blood pressure that triggered the brain stroke or that respondent was aware of the condition when he boarded the vessel. It reasoned that the PEME showed normal blood pressure, which indicated that respondent did not have a pre-existing medical condition at boarding. Even assuming a pre-existing condition, the Labor Arbiter found that carrying Isordil was not conclusive proof of elevated blood pressure and could have been brought as a precaution in case of an unforeseen elevated blood pressure incident.

The Labor Arbiter further declared respondent’s hypertension work-related because it was listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-B of the 2010 POEA-SEC, and concluded it was not capable of partial disability assessment. Although respondent’s independent physician assigned a Grade VII impediment rating, the Labor Arbiter granted total disability benefits because the independent physician also declared respondent unfit to work in any seafaring capacity. It granted attorney’s fees because respondent had been compelled to litigate to protect his interests, while denying moral and exemplary damages for lack of factual and legal bases.

NLRC’s Ruling: Total and Permanent Benefits Under the CBA Framework; No Concealment Established

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. In a Decision dated May 8, 2014, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s rulings with modification. It ordered petitioners to solidarily pay respondent US$151,470.00 representing total and permanent disability compensation benefits in accordance with Appendix 3 (Compensation Payments) of the CBA, and it likewise sustained the award of attorney’s fees.

The NLRC agreed that there was no concealment because respondent’s PEME showed fitness for work and normal blood pressure, with no heart problem. It ruled that the possession of Isordil did not ipso facto establish that respondent was hypertensive or under maintenance medication. The NLRC also reasoned that even if hypertension pre-existed, such pre-existence would not bar compensation since respondent was asymptomatic of any cerebrovascular events before boarding, and symptoms manifested during work strain and while he was performing his duties.

The NLRC gave greater weight to the independent physician’s findings that respondent was unfit to work, particularly given that the company-designated physician’s later report reflected continued rehabilitation and medication. It further reasoned that the CBA contemplated accident or unforeseen events causing physical harm or injury, and that respondent’s illness was an unforeseen event physically injuring the brain.

In a Resolution dated June 30, 2014, the NLRC denied reconsideration and granted respondent’s motion ordering petitioners to pay attorney’s fees.

CA’s Ruling: Work-Aggravated Stroke; Total and Permanent Disability; Attorney’s Fees Proper

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated June 21, 2016, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in awarding total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA.

The CA agreed that respondent’s brain stroke was work-aggravated/related and incapacitated him from working. It observed that petitioners did not show that respondent suffered any ailment prior to the cerebrovascular accident and that petitioners failed to refute respondent’s claim that the nature of his work exposed him to varying circumstances such as extreme hot and cold temperatures, harsh weather conditions, and mental stress as Ship Master. The CA also noted that the company-designated physician failed to declare respondent fit to work despite the lapse of the relevant 120/240-day period, supporting a conclusion of total and permanent disability. It sustained attorney’s fees because respondent was compelled to litigate to protect his interests.

The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 9, 2016, prompting the present petition.

Issues and Disposition: Whether Respondent Was Entitled to Total and Permanent Disability Benefits Under the CBA

The Supreme Court framed the main issue as whether the CA erred in upholding the NLRC’s findings that respondent was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA.

The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s Decision dated June 21, 2016 and Resolution dated November 9, 2016, but modified the legal basis of the award by clarifying that the benefits should be computed and awarded under the 2010 POEA-SEC rather than under the CBA, whi

...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