Title
Supreme Court
Solito C. Amores, Jr. vs. Goldroute Maritime Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 254186
Decision Date
Apr 17, 2024
Seafarer repatriated for redeployment, not medical reasons, failed to prove work-related illness or undergo required tests, barring disability claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220486)

Timeline of Events

Amores entered into the contract on March 28, 2015, and passed his pre-employment medical examination (PEME). In October 2015, during his employment, he experienced chest pains and was subsequently repatriated on October 18, 2015. Upon returning to the Philippines, Amores reported to the respondent's office and requested a post-employment medical examination but was directed to see his private doctor instead.

Medical Evaluations

On October 20, 2015, Amores consulted his personal physician, Dr. Rogelio M. Ramirez, who prescribed medication and recommended further examinations. Subsequently, on December 15, 2015, the respondent's company-designated physician, Dr. Ramon M. Guzman, evaluated Amores and found him unfit for sea duty due to hypertension and possible ischemic heart disease. Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa Javier later suggested further assessment via a CT Angiogram.

Arbitration and Legal Proceedings

After a grievance meeting failed to resolve the issue, Amores filed a Notice to Arbitrate, claiming that his medical condition was work-related and that he was entitled to full disability benefits among others. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruled in favor of Amores, declaring him permanently disabled and awarding benefits. However, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which found Amores's claim to be premature due to his not completing recommended medical tests and the lack of a definitive diagnosis.

Appeals and Arguments

Amores contested the Court of Appeals' decision by highlighting that his repatriation was not due to medical reasons. He argued that the respondent's failure to refer him for a mandatory post-employment examination entitled him to disability benefits by operation of law. The respondent maintained that Amores's claim was premature and that he had not complied with medical advice, which meant there was no basis for a final disability determination.

Court's Consideration of Factual Disputes

The Supreme Court determined that the case turned on factual disputes regarding whether Amores had sought a post-employment medical examination and if respondent's actions could be deemed as refusal to comply with medical advice. However, the Court reiterated its limited function in reviewing facts and emphasized applying the well-established rule that claims must be grounded in substantiated evidence.

Determination of Disability and Work-Relatedness

The Supreme Court examined the procedural aspects of Amores's employment and medical terms. It noted that the medical evaluations performed did not explicitly support a con

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.