G.R. No. 254186 - Solito C. Amores, Jr. vs. Goldroute Maritime Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254186)

Factual Background

Petitioner embarked under a March 28, 2015 Contract of Employment and was declared fit for sea duty after a pre-employment medical examination (PEME). Sometime in October 2015 he experienced chest pains and shortness of breath and was repatriated to the Philippines on October 18, 2015 along with two other seafarers. Upon repatriation petitioner reported to respondent’s office and was told he would be transferred to another vessel; he requested a post-employment medical examination but was advised to consult his private physician. On October 20, 2015 petitioner saw Dr. Rogelio M. Ramirez, who prescribed medication and recommended further cardiac testing. Respondent later lined petitioner up for deployment and required another PEME; on December 15, 2015 the company-designated physician, Dr. Ramon M. Guzman, found petitioner suffering from "Hypertension, Controlled, T/C Ischemic Heart for Work-Up and Possible Angiography" and declared him unfit for sea duty. Respondent referred petitioner to the company-designated cardiologist, Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa Javier, who performed further evaluation and recommended a CT angiogram following an abnormal stress echo.

Proceedings before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators

Petitioner filed a Notice to Arbitrate with the RCMB-NCR and submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration claiming that his hypertensive cardiovascular condition was work-related and entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondent contended the claim was premature because further medical testing had been recommended and no final disability determination had been made. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators issued a Decision dated May 10, 2016 declaring petitioner permanently and totally disabled and ordering respondent to pay disability benefits of USD 60,000, sickness allowance of USD 2,416, and ten percent attorney’s fees, reasoning that petitioner showed no signs of cardiovascular disease before the voyage and that his symptoms manifested after strenuous shipboard labor and exposure to the vessel’s food and water, and further noting that cardiovascular illnesses are listed as occupational diseases under Section 32-A, paragraph 11, POEA-SEC.

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

Respondent sought review under Rule 43, Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals reversed the PVA. The appellate court held that petitioner’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits was premature because he filed within the 120-day period and before the company-designated physicians could complete the recommended tests and issue a final disability rating. The CA characterized the December 15, 2015 PEME report as an interim assessment issued for deployment purposes rather than a final disability rating and therefore insufficient to support an award of total and permanent disability benefits. The CA nonetheless awarded sickness allowance only from repatriation on October 18, 2015 until the filing of petitioner’s claim with the RCMB-NCR and denied attorney’s fees.

Petitioner's Contentions before the Supreme Court

Petitioner asserted that respondent refused to refer him for a mandatory post-employment medical examination upon repatriation despite his request, and that such refusal resulted in the absence of a proper medical assessment and thus operation-of-law entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, citing Dionio v. ND Shipping Agency and Allied Services, Inc. He maintained that the 120/240-day rule for company physicians to render a final disability rating does not apply when a seafarer is not referred for post-employment examination and that respondent’s inaction prevented any reckoning of the statutory period. Petitioner also argued that the December 15, 2015 medical report declaring him unfit for sea duty binds respondent and that his subsequent filing of a claim before the exhaustion of the 120-day period was not premature because his heart condition would persist beyond those periods.

Respondent's Contentions before the Supreme Court

Respondent argued that petitioner did not prove that he requested a post-employment medical examination upon repatriation and that the evidence showed petitioner was not repatriated for medical reasons but for redeployment. Respondent emphasized that petitioner failed to comply with company-designated physicians’ recommendations for further cardiac testing, that petitioner sought private medical treatment without informing respondent, and that filing for disability benefits before the completion of the recommended work-up and before expiration of the 120-day period constituted premature filing and amounted to medical abandonment under the terms of the employment contract. Respondent also raised procedural objections regarding verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

Issue Presented

The principal issue was whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated September 4, 2019 and Resolution dated November 3, 2020, which reversed and set aside the PVA award of total and permanent disability benefits. The Court agreed that petitioner was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits and that he was not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Court's Legal Reasoning

The Court found the critical questions to be factual: whether petitioner requested a post-employment medical examination upon repatriation and whether respondent refused such request. Although the Court generally does not reweigh facts on appeal, it acknowledged the conflict in factual findings between the PVA and the CA and therefore resolved the factual dispute. The Court observed that petitioner’s disembarkation was not for medical reasons and that petitioner failed to prove he had requested a post-employment examination upon arrival; moreover, respondent promptly referred petitioner to a company-designated cardiologist after the December 15, 2015 PEME declared him unfit for sea duty, undermining petitioner’s claim of categorical refusal. The Court distinguished petitioner’s reliance on Dionio and related authorities because those cases involved seafarers who were repatriated for medical reasons and whose offshore medical records established a work-related illness, whereas in the presen

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254186)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner Solito C. Amores, Jr. was employed as an oiler under a nine-month Contract of Employment dated March 28, 2015.
Respondent Goldroute Maritime Inc. engaged petitioner to serve on board the vessel "Kanoura" on behalf of its principal, Kyowa Kisen Co. Ltd.
The dispute originated in a Notice to Arbitrate filed with the Regional Conciliation and Mediation Board National Capital Region and proceeded to voluntary arbitration.
The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators rendered a Decision awarding total and permanent disability benefits, which Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court from the Court of Appeals' reversal.

Key Facts

Petitioner experienced chest pains and shortness of breath sometime in October 2015 and was repatriated on October 18, 2015 together with two other seafarers.
Petitioner reported to respondent's office on October 19, 2015 and was informed that he would be transferred to another vessel and was told to await deployment advice.
Petitioner requested a post-employment medical examination upon repatriation but alleged that respondent told him to consult his private physician.
On October 20, 2015 Petitioner consulted Dr. Rogelio M. Ramirez who prescribed medication and advised further tests including electrocardiogram and treadmill stress test.
Respondent instructed Petitioner to undergo PEME on December 5, 2015, and Petitioner was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. Ramon M. Guzman, on December 15, 2015.
Dr. Guzman's December 15, 2015 report found Petitioner to have "Hypertension, Controlled, T/C Ischemic Heart for Work-Up and Possible Angiography" and declared him unfit for sea duty.
Company-designated cardiologist Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa Javier examined Petitioner on December 28, 2016 and recommended a CT Angiogram after noting an abnormal Stress Echo dated December 17, 2015.
Petitioner pursued a grievance meeting on January 8, 2016 which failed to settle the controversy, prompting arbitration and subsequent judicial review.

Procedural History

The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators issued a Decision dated May 10, 2016 declaring Petitioner permanently and totally disabled and ordering Respondent to pay disability benefits of USD 60,000, sickness allowance of USD 2,416, and ten percent attorney's fees.
The Panel denied respondent's motion for reconsideration in a July 5, 2016 Resolution.
The Court of Appeals in a Decision dated September 4, 2019 reversed the PVA and set aside the award of total and permanent disability benefits while awarding sickness allowance only from repatriation until the filing of the regional claim and denying attorney's fees.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals which was denied on November 3, 2020.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition with this Court which was initially denied for procedural defects but was reinstated on February 14, 2022 following a successful motion for reconsideration.
This Court resolved the me