Title
Supreme Court
Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 210307
Decision Date
Feb 22, 2017
Seaman Dela Cruz sought disability benefits after surgery; denied due to premature filing, non-compliance with referral to third doctor, and valid company-physician’s fitness assessment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18390)

Factual Background

Dante F. Dela Cruz was employed by Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc. as an Ordinary Seaman aboard the vessel "M/V Venus" on July 2, 2009. After a nine-month initial contract, he signed an extended contract due to performance as an Able Seaman until October 2010. Upon carrying heavy loads, Dela Cruz experienced pain, leading to his diagnosis of 'Varicocele' by a physician in Brazil. He was repatriated on September 3, 2010, and evaluated by the company-designated physician upon his return to the Philippines, who also recommended surgery. After undergoing surgery, subsequent assessments by the company physician indicated a slight residual disorder, and he was later deemed fit to work, despite his concerns about ongoing pain.

Labor Arbiter (LA) Ruling

On July 29, 2011, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Dela Cruz’s claim for disability benefits, favoring the assessment of the company-designated physician over that of Dela Cruz's personal physician due to conflicting evaluations and the absence of an independent medical referral. However, the LA did grant him sick wages and attorney’s fees, recognizing that there was no evidence presented to show he had received sick wages.

NLRC Decision

On April 2, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the LA's decision by affirming that Dela Cruz was not entitled to any disability benefits, as the assessments provided by the company-designated physician were credible and consistent with legal standards. The NLRC reaffirmed the dismissal of his permanent disability claim due to the lack of compliance concerning the 120-day fitness assessment post-repatriation.

Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC's ruling on June 28, 2013, stating that Dela Cruz should have been declared permanently disabled based on the 120-day requirement set by the POEA-SEC, which had not been fulfilled, thus violating his rights under labor law. The CA granted Dela Cruz total disability benefits and attorney's fees. This decision hinged on the elapsed time from his repatriation to the fitness declaration and how it applied to the established rules for disability determination.

Petition for Review

Tradephil and Ortega challenged this ruling, asserting that the CA erred in deviating from established principles, specifically the ruling in Vergara vs. Hammonia Maritime Service, which addressed the 120-day rule concerning fitness assessments and allowed for an extension under certain circumstances. The petitioners contended that Dela Cruz's claims were premature, as he had not complied with reporting requirements to the company-designated physician.

Supreme Court's Ruling

In granting the petition, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles established in Vergara and subsequent cases regarding the appropriate duration of treatment periods and assessments. The Court clarified that while seafarers were entitled to claims based on their empl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.