Title
Supreme Court
Transocean Ship Management , Inc. vs. Vedad
Case
G.R. No. 194490-91
Decision Date
Mar 20, 2013
Seafarer Inocencio Vedad, diagnosed with tonsil cancer during employment, was denied permanent disability benefits but granted a 120-day sickness allowance and medical expense reimbursement under POEA-SEC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194490-91)

Relevant Facts

Inocencio was employed as a second engineer for a 10-month period, beginning June 1, 2005. Following a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) which confirmed his fitness, he was deployed aboard M/V Invicta. However, on February 19, 2006, he was repatriated for medical reasons after experiencing significant health issues, including fever and pain in his right ear. Subsequent medical examinations revealed he suffered from chronic suppurative otitis media and acute pharyngitis. Eventually, he was diagnosed with tonsillar cancer after a tonsillectomy performed on May 10, 2006.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled on August 10, 2007, in favor of Inocencio, granting him USD 60,000 for permanent total disability benefits while dismissing the other claims. The Labor Arbiter argued that Inocencio’s cancer should be covered under the presumption of work-relatedness as stipulated in Section 20 of the POEA-SEC. Also noted was Transocean's failure to fulfill their promise to cover medical expenses, which supported the claim.

NLRC’s Ruling

Upon appeal, the NLRC vacated the Labor Arbiter’s decision on May 29, 2008. It concluded that Inocencio was only entitled to a sickness allowance equivalent to four months of salary, amounting to USD 4,616, and reimbursement of medical expenses since the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, certified that Inocencio's cancer was not work-related, shifting the burden of proof to Inocencio.

Court of Appeals' Findings

The CA, in its decision on July 28, 2010, upheld the NLRC decision to some extent by denying Inocencio the sickness allowance but affirming the requirement for reimbursement of medical expenses. The CA reiterated that Inocencio's illness was not proven to be work-related, based on the doctor's assessment.

Legal Issues Presented

Transocean et al. claimed that the CA's ruling to order them to reimburse Inocencio's medical expenses constituted grave abuse of discretion. Inocencio asserted that the CA failed to base its findings on substantial evidence, that claims contrasting legal standards were overlooked, and that he should also be entitled to attorney’s fees.

Supreme Court’s Determination on Sickness Allowance

The Supreme Court found that Inocencio was entitled to sickness allowance following his repatriation for medical treatment, as Section 20 of the POEA-SEC mandates such compensation until a conclusive assessment by the company-designated physician. The lack of a definitive declaration regarding the work-relatedness of his ailment prior to repatriation necessitated the granting of this allowance.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion on Permanent Total Disability

In contrast, the Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's and CA's findings that Inocencio’s illness was not work-related, consequently denying him permanent total disability benefits. The Court reiterated the necessity for substantial evidence to support such claims, which

...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.