Title
Quines vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 248774
Decision Date
May 12, 2021
Seafarer Quines, diagnosed with hypertension and heart disease, deemed permanently unfit due to work-related illness; awarded total disability benefits after company physicians failed to issue timely assessment.
seafarer
inconclusive medical reports
medical reimbursement

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248774)

Facts Underlying the Disability Claim

Petitioner testified that after his first deployment in 2002, UPLI allegedly repeatedly advised his next deployment without requiring him to re-apply. He stated that whenever he boarded a vessel, he was declared fit for sea duties. On March 18, 2015, he signed an employment contract with UPLI for and on behalf of Shell Shipping Co. Petitioner described strenuous Able Seaman duties aboard ship, including rigging and unrigging of a pilot ladder, crane operation and maintenance, handling heavy-duty hatches, lifting and carrying provisions and stores, mooring and unmooring, chipping and painting, anchoring operations, blocking scupper pipe openings, steering in and out of port and narrow waterways, and performing other tasks as instructed.

On July 22, 2015, while performing duties, petitioner experienced headaches, nausea, muscle cramps, and stomach pain. He was initially given medication and later sent to Corpus Christi Medical Center in Texas, USA, where he was diagnosed with hypertension, neuropathy in the hands and feet, and nausea. He was medically repatriated the same day. Upon returning to the Philippines, UPLI referred him to its company-designated physician, who reportedly declared him fit to work and required him to line up for deployment.

Petitioner next underwent a pre-employment medical examination on September 15, 2015, after disclosing the prior repatriation due to hypertension and that he was under maintenance medication. The company doctor allegedly still declared him fit for sea duties. On December 10, 2015, he signed another employment contract as Able Seaman for six months aboard Silver Ebuna, covered by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. He executed a Crew Medication Declaration that he brought maintenance medicines for hypertension.

Sometime during the first week of March 2016, petitioner reported chest pains, shivering legs and arms, dizziness, headaches, tightness, and shortness of breath. He informed the Captain and Chief Mate, and he stated that although his blood pressure was checked at 170/100 mmHg, his superiors allegedly directed him to continue medication and return to work. Because symptoms persisted and worsened, the Captain repatriated him for urgent treatment. Petitioner arrived in the Philippines on April 1, 2016 and reported to UPLI. He was referred to UPLI’s company-designated physician at Marine Medical Services.

On May 24, 2016, UPLI referred him to cardiologist Dr. Melissa Co Sia. On June 10, 2016, he again experienced severe chest pain, tightness, and shortness of breath and went to AMOSUP Seamen’s Hospital, where he was diagnosed with Coronary Heart Disease and prescribed maintenance medication. UPLI then directed him back to Dr. Sia. On November 15, 2016, Dr. Sia prescribed four new maintenance medications for hypertension, chest pains, dizziness, and nausea. Petitioner later informed Dr. Sia that his condition had not improved. Dr. Sia allegedly informed him that UPLI stopped treatment because he had already reached the maximum allowable treatment, but Dr. Sia did not issue a final medical assessment despite petitioner’s request.

On December 7, 2016, petitioner consulted another cardiologist, Dr. Antonio C. Pascual, who diagnosed Ischemic Heart Disease and Hypertension Stage 2 and issued a report that petitioner was “MEDICALLY UNFIT TO WORK AS A SEAMAN.” Petitioner claimed that he had no employment contract offer for more than 240 days after repatriation and that UPLI did not heed his request for a grievance meeting. He maintained that his hypertension persisted and worsened due to stress from hard manual labor, extreme temperatures, and emotional strain aboard ship.

Respondents’ Version and Medical Findings

Respondents countered that petitioner signed a six-month employment contract for Shell Shipping Co. through UPLI’s local manning agent. They asserted that the contract adopted the POEA-SEC for Filipino seafarers. They emphasized that during PEME, petitioner disclosed his pre-existing hypertension and that he was taking maintenance medication.

Respondents stated that after petitioner’s repatriation on April 1, 2016, the company-designated cardiologist noted a historical diagnosis by a private doctor in General Santos City in 2011. They asserted that on April 5, 2016, petitioner had an elevated blood pressure of 140/90 mmHg and was advised to undergo a 24-hour heart holter monitoring and given medications. Respondents further claimed that petitioner’s subsequent complaints of dizziness and high blood pressure were evaluated and that his dizziness was not neurologic because cranial MRI findings were normal. They also asserted that at later check-ups, petitioner’s blood pressure remained within controlled ranges.

Respondents maintained that on October 25, 2016, the company-designated doctors declared normal findings on cardiac and neurologic work-ups, except for hypertension which was controlled. They opined that petitioner’s dizziness and chest pain were likely psychiatric in nature and associated with hyperventilation syndrome and anxiety. On November 18, 2016, they issued two medical reports stating that petitioner was cleared from cardiac and neurologic standpoint and that there was no absolute cardiovascular contraindication against resuming work. They further stated that petitioner’s dizziness and chest pain were due to anxiety and hyperventilation. In fine, respondents claimed petitioner was not permanently unfit for sea duties.

Proceedings Before the NCMB-PVA

The NCMB Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators found petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the collective bargaining agreement. The PVA determined that there was a reasonable connection between petitioner’s job and his illness. It acknowledged that hypertension could be controlled with maintenance medication and that petitioner was asymptomatic prior to embarkation. Still, it found that while discharging duties aboard Silver Ebuna, petitioner developed dizziness, chest pains, and muscle cramps, and that work stress actively contributed to the progression of his illness and eventual repatriation.

The PVA relied on the independent doctors’ diagnoses of Coronary Heart Disease or Ischemic Heart Disease, reasoning that hypertension was a risk factor for coronary or ischemic heart disease and that chest pain could result from insufficient blood flow to the heart muscle. It discounted respondents’ claim that dizziness and chest pains were due to anxiety. It noted that the company-designated medical report dated November 18, 2016 recommended psychiatric evaluation and management and disability grading, but respondents allegedly did not act on that recommendation. The PVA found no medical report or assessment demonstrating that psychiatric evaluation was actually conducted.

The PVA also held that respondents’ failure to give petitioner another contract after repatriation lasting more than a year indicated incapacity to work as an Able Seaman, leading the PVA to deem petitioner totally and permanently disabled by law. The PVA denied petitioner’s claims for medical reimbursement, moral damages, and exemplary damages for lack of basis. It ordered respondents to pay US$98,848.00 under the IBF-AMOSUP/IMEC TCCC Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2015–2017, plus ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees based on the total award.

Rulings of the Court of Appeals

On review, respondents argued that petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that he suffered from Coronary Heart Disease or Ischemic Heart Disease, and that the AMOSUP certificate dated July 1, 2016 lacked a definitive diagnosis. They also contended that Dr. Pascual’s report showed hypertension stage 2 rather than ischemic heart disease. They argued that petitioner therefore had no cardiovascular disease that would entitle him to disability benefits.

Petitioner maintained that, although he had pre-existing hypertension, his condition was aggravated by his duties and that dizziness and chest pains were linked to the heart disease diagnoses. He further argued that respondents failed to provide a final and definitive medical assessment within the required 120/240-day period from repatriation. He asserted that the company-designated doctors’ medical reports dated November 18, 2016 were not final or conclusive.

The Court of Appeals reversed. It ruled that there was no definitive or final diagnosis showing petitioner suffered from Coronary Heart Disease or Ischemic Heart Disease. It recognized that petitioner had hypertension but held that mere hypertension did not automatically mean petitioner was permanently unfit for sea duties. It did not squarely rule on petitioner’s separate argument that respondents failed to make a final and definitive medical assessment within the 120/240-day period. It reversed the PVA’s award and dismissed the NCMB case. The Court of Appeals required petitioner to return the executed award of Php5,544,937.87, less the peso equivalent of US$3,000.00 as financial assistance.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

Petitioner invoked the Supreme Court’s Rule 45 jurisdiction, arguing that his hypertension was aggravated by work stress and that his dizziness and chest pains were manifestations of Coronary Heart Disease or Ischemic Heart Disease, not anxiety. He also asserted that he had to seek treatment independently because respondents terminated his medical care. He further argued that because respondents’ company-designated doctors did not make a final medical assessment within the prescribed 120/240-day period, he should be deemed totally and permanently disabled.

Respondents maintained that petitioner’s claimed heart disease was not supported by substantial evidence and that the company-designated doctors’ findings attributing symptoms to anxiety should be respected.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court reversed the Court of Appea

...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