Case Summary (A.M. No. P-06-2272)
Factual Antecedents
Mark Anthony Saso was employed by 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. as a fisherman aboard a vessel in Taiwan, with an employment duration of 24 months at a monthly salary of NT$ 17,280. After passing the Pre-Employment Medical Examination, Saso left for Taiwan on February 3, 2010. On March 12, 2010, while performing his duties, he suffered an accident that resulted in a severe injury to his right thigh, necessitating two surgeries in Taiwan. After his repatriation on April 20, 2010, Saso returned on crutches and subsequently filed a complaint on August 3, 2010, seeking various benefits including disability compensation.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In his initial claims, Saso alleged neglect by the respondents, stating they abandoned him post-repatriation and forced him to bear medical expenses without assistance. Saso’s medical evaluations demonstrated significant impairment of his right leg. The Labor Arbiter ruled that since the respondents failed to assess Saso's condition within the prescribed 120 days following his repatriation, he was entitled to permanent disability benefits as outlined in the relevant legal precedents, specifically referencing that permanent disability encompasses the inability to perform essential job functions. Accordingly, he was awarded US$60,000 in benefits along with a sickness allowance.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
On appeal, the NLRC found merit in the respondents’ arguments, particularly focusing on Saso's failure to adhere to the three-day mandatory reporting requirement for a post-employment medical examination. The NLRC concluded that since Saso filed his complaint prematurely before the 120-day period had lapsed, he was not entitled to the benefits claimed. Consequently, the NLRC dismissed Saso's complaint, asserting that his inability to report for a medical evaluation negated his right to claim compensation.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Saso's subsequent petition asserted that he had complied with reporting within three days of his repatriation, providing evidence of a medical examination he sought independently due to the respondents’ inaction. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents, highlighting the premature filing of the complaint and Saso's failure to follow mandatory reporting protocols. The appellate court denied Saso's petition, maintaining that his claims lacked merit based on procedural violations.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted Saso's petition, emphasizing that a failure by the respondents to conduct a post-employment medical examination does not automatically preclude an employee from claiming benefits. The Court established that Saso did indeed report for evaluation within the required timeframe and the absence of assessment was due to the respondents' fault. Despite this, Saso's claim for total and permanent disability benefits was denied as he had not exceeded th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. P-06-2272)
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Mark Anthony Saso was employed by 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. as a fisherman aboard a fishing vessel in Taiwan.
- His employment contract was for a duration of 24 months with a monthly salary of NT$ 17,280.00.
- Upon fulfilling his deployment requirements, including a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) which deemed him fit for work, Saso left the Philippines on February 3, 2010.
- An accident occurred on March 12, 2010, while he was working; a heavy fishnet fell on him, resulting in a right thigh fracture.
- Saso underwent two surgeries in Taiwan and was repatriated to the Philippines on April 20, 2010, using crutches.
Initial Complaint
- On August 3, 2010, Saso filed a complaint against his employers for various claims including disability benefits and medical reimbursement.
- He alleged neglect from the respondents post-repatriation, stating they did not assist him or cover his medical expenses upon his return.
- Saso claimed he was advised to cover his medical costs initially, which he later sought reimbursement for.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- The Labor Arbiter found that there was a failure on the part of the company-designated physician to assess Saso's disability within the mandated 120 days after repatriation.
- Citing the case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Deo Natividad, the Ar