Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc.

, Yokohama Marine and Merchant Corporation,

and/or Florida Z. Jose, Petitioners,
v.
Angelito B. Pangasian, Respondent.
Facts:
From 2002- 2012 petitioners continuously employed Angelito B. Pangasian as Chief
Cook under various contracts. After undergoing the pre-employment medical examination
and having been declared "fit for sea duty, without restrictions,” respondent was rehired on
July 21, 2011 to resume his former position as Chief Cook on board the reefer ship M/V New
Hayatsuki. The employment contract was approved by the POEA. Aside from the normal
duties of a Chief Cook, respondent alleged that he also helped in the loading and unloading of
tons of cargoes of skipjack, tuna fish and big squid from numerous fishing boats in the high
seas of the Pacific Ocean and then unloading them at different ports of destinations. On
March 15, 2012, , respondent noticed swelling and felt pain in his testicles after lifting,
carrying and loading heavy sacks of big squid into the ship and performing chamber cleaning
works. Respondent informed his Chief Officer about this and he was given antibiotics for
temporary relief. On April 17, 2012, in yet another course of loading heavy sacks full of
skipjack, tuna fish and big squid into the ship, respondent averred that he accidentally
slipped and lost his balance. Although he felt a crack at his lower back, he did not make
much of it given that the pain was tolerable at that time. He continued with his task of
loading the cargoes together with the other crew members until the reefer ship was fully
loaded and set sail for Bangkok, Thailand where the cargoes will be unloaded. On April 20,
2012, while the reefer ship was en route to Bangkok, Thailand, respondent alleged that the
swelling and the pain in his testicles, and his back pains became alarming so he reported the
same to his ship master, Captain Isamo Yamamoto. When they reached the port of Bangkok,
Thailand on May 18, 2012, respondent was surprised when the ship captain, instead of
referring him to a port doctor, told him that he will be repatriated and that his replacement
was already waiting to board the reefer ship. Thus, respondent claimed that he just asked
Captain Yamamoto for a medical referral upon his arrival in the Philippines.
When respondent arrived in the Philippines on May 18, 2012, he immediately went to
Falcon Maritime, the local manning agency, and personally delivered Captain Yamamoto's
referral letter to petitioner Jose, who, in turn, referred him to NGC Medical Specialist Clinic,
Inc. On May 21, 2012, respondent was examined by Dr. Paul C. Comising the company-
designated physician, and was diagnosed with varicocoele, bilateral. Respondent underwent
varicocoelectomy, bilateral at the Manila Doctor's Hospital and during his check-up on
August 28, 2012, Dr. Comising noted that the pain respondent was feeling in the operative
wounds has resolved and the wounds have healed well. As such, respondent was declared fit
to work.
Respondent wrote petitioners on August 29, 2012, informing them thathe still
continues to feel pain on his surgical wound and experience numbness on the site of
operation. He also feels pain on his spine. He, thus, asked that he be reevaluated and
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) be performed on him to determine his present state. He
also asked for illness allowance. Respondent did not get any response however he decided to
undergo MRI of his lumbo-sacral spines at the BDM MRI Center, Inc. The result of the MRI
was that respondent was suffering from DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE, L3-L4 AND L4-
L5. In a Certification dated October 5, 2012, Dr. Cortes opined that the present clinical
status and health problem of the respondent may have been brought about by strenuous
physical activities and that the condition of his spine poses a serious health problem
which requires immediate spine surgical intervention. On October 25, 2012, respondent
again wrote the petitioners appealing for medical assistance, treatment and reimbursement of
the expenses he incurred for his physical therapy, and expressing that such will be of great
help inasmuch as he cannot yet resume his work because of his Injuries.
Respondent filed a claim with the petitioners for the payment of his disability
benefits based on POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) however, petitioners
refused to grant his claim on the ground that the respondent had already been declared fit to
work by the company-designated physician. Respondent then filed Notice to Arbitrate
before the Panel on December 11, 2012 who ruled in his favor. The panel held that respondent
was in perfect health condition before he boarded petitioners' reefer ship as shown by the
result of his pre-employment medical examination. However, prior to his disembarkation,
respondent complained of testicular pains, swelling, and lower back pains. That while
working as a Chief Cook for M/V New Hayatsuki, respondent performed strenuous physical
activities which included the constant lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling of heavy
materials and ship provisions. On top of these, he was also tasked to help the other crew
members during loading and unloading of heavy sacks full of skipjack, tuna fish and big squid
from different fishing boats plying the Pacific Ocean to different ports of unloading
destinations. In fact, it was in one of these loading tasks, or on April 17, 2012, that respondent
slipped while carrying a heavy sack of big squid, and then felt a crack at his back and pain
thereon. The Panel held that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability
compensation based on POEA-SEC. Respondent must also be reimbursed of his medical
expenses for his physical therapy sessions as evidenced by the medical receipts43 he
presented pursuant to Article 25 of the CB A, and granted sickness allowance under
Article 26 of the CBA. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Panel that
respondent was able to establish the work connection of his multiple disabilities to his daily
duties as Chief Cook on board M/V New Hayatsuki taking into account the nature of his
work, the daily working conditions while on sea duty and his additional strenuous activities
of pushing, pulling, lifting, carrying, loading and unloading of heavy materials, provisions and
cargoes. Since his condition was shown to be work-related, the same is compensable.

Issues:
Whether or not the respondent is entitled to disability benefits.
Whether or not respondent is entitled to sickness allowance.

Ruling:

No. It is settled that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to

disability benefits is governed by law, by the parties' contracts, and by the medical findings.
Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which is the rule applicable to this case since
respondent was employed in 2011, governs the procedure for compensation and benefits for a
work-related injury or illness suffered by a seafarer on board sea-going vessels during the
term of his employment contract. For disability to be compensable under the 2010 POEA-
SEC, three elements must concur: (1) the seafarer must have submitted to a mandatory
post-employment medical examination; (2) the injury or illness must be work-related;
and (3) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the
seafarer's employment contract. The post-employment medical examination has two
requisites: (1) it is done by a company-designated physician; and (2) within three
working days upon the seafarer's return.55 Failure to comply with such requirement
results in the forfeiture of the seafarer's claim for disability benefits. There are, however,
exceptions to the rule: (1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer
upon his repatriation; and (2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused
to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination by a company-
designated physician. There is no denying that respondent submitted himself to post-
employment medical examination within the required period. However, what is peculiar in
this case is that his examination was confined only to the pain and swelling in his testicles as
had been mentioned in the doctor's referral, as well as for abdominal pain that he informed
the doctor he had been experiencing on and off since March 15, 2012. Respondent’s back pain
was not included in the referral precisely because his written request only asked for a referral
for his testicular pain. If respondent had truly been experiencing continuing back pains while
he was still on board the vessel, then it stands to reason that respondent's written request for
medical referral would not only be for his testicular pain but would naturally include his
back pains, especially so when he claimed that the same had become unbearable. That
contrary to the contention of the respondent, the company-designated physician would
not have left undiagnosed and untreated an illness or injury that was brought to his
attention, with or without a referral. Otherwise, the post-employment medical
examination of the respondent would have only been confined to his testicular pain, the
only ailment referred to the company-designated physician, and would not include his
abdominal pain. Respondent's failure to disclose his lumbar problem is fatal to his cause.
Given that the respondent failed to bring to the attention of the company-designated
physician his back pains thereby precluding the latter from assessing whether the same
is work-related or not, the respondent is deemed not to have undergone the required
post-employment medical examination contemplated under the POEA-SEC relative to
his back pains for purposes of claiming compensation therefor. The High Court has
consistently held that that the three-day mandatory reporting requirement must be
strictly observed since within three days from repatriation, it would be fairly
manageable for the company-designated physician to identify whether the illness or
injury was contracted during the term of the seafarer's employment or that his working
conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. Moreover, the post-
employment medical examination within three days from arrival is required to ascertain
the seafarer's physical condition, since to ignore the rule would set a precedent with
negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to seafarers claiming
disability benefits that are not work-related or which arise after the employment. It
would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the
cause of a claimant's illness considering the passage of time. In such a case, the employer
would have no protection against unrelated claims. Therefore, it is the company-
designated physician who must proclaim that the seafarer suffered a permanent
disability, whether total or partial, due to either illness or injury, during the term of the
latter's employment. In this case, the company-designated physician had no opportunity
to assess the back pains of the respondent since, to emphasize, he made no mention of
such back pains to the company-designated physician during his post-employment
medical examination. To hold the petitioners liable for disability benefits when they
were robbed of the opportunity to determine the work relation of the injury now being
complained of by the respondent, a right guaranteed by the POEA-SEC, would be the
height of injustice. To reiterate, when he underwent post-employment medical
examination, he did not call the attention of the company-designated physician to his
back pains. In fact, when he was asked if he was experiencing numbness or weakness in
his body or difficulty with ambulation, he answered in the negative. On record, he
informed the petitioners about his lumbar problem only on August 29, 2012, or three
months after he was repatriated. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that at the time of
his repatriation, respondent was not suffering from any back pains requiring any
medical assistance. That he was found to be suffering from degenerative disc disease, L3-
L4 and L4-L5 and broad based disc bulge with annular tear at L4-L5 when he underwent
medical tests and was examined by his doctors after August 29, 2012 is of no moment.

Yes. While the Court rules that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits
for his back pains, the Court does not lose sight that when the respondent was
repatriated on May 18, 2012, he was already complaining of pain and swelling in his
testicles. His post-employment medical examination on May 21, 2012 revealed that he
was suffering from varicocoele, bilateral for which he was treated and operated on. After
a series of follow-up check-ups, he was declared fit to work on August 28, 2012. As
respondent was suffering from an illness that required medical attention after he was
repatriated, he is clearly entitled to a sickness allowance pursuant to Section 20(A)(3)
of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Petitioners acknowledged their obligation as in fact they had
already paid the amount of P36,000.00 to the respondent. Under Section 20(A)(3) of the
2010 POEA-SEC, the amount of sickness allowance that the seafarer shall receive from
his employer shall be in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed at the time he
signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by
the company-designated physician, but shall in no case exceed 120 days. Since
respondent signed off from the vessel on May 18, 2012 and was declared fit to work on August
28, 2012, he is entitled to a sickness allowance equivalent to 102 days or the amount of
US$2,036.60 computed based on his basic pay of US$599.00 per month at 40 hours of
work per week, or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency, minus the amount of
P36,000.00 already advanced by the petitioners.

Intercrew Shipping Agency, Star Emirates Marine Services and/or Ortega (Petitioner)
vs
Calantoc (Respondent)
FACTS:
In 2008, Intercrew shipping hired Calantoc for its foreign principal Star
Emirates as Fourth Engineer for 12 months with a basic monthly salary of US$700.
Calantoc underwent a pre-employment medical examination, and despite his high blood
pressure he was declared “fit for sea duty”. He was then deployed to join MV Oryx. After
4 months, respondent experienced a slurring of speech, weakness on his right side and
was diagnosed with mild stroke. Despite this he continued his work but when his
condition worsened he requested to be repatriated.
On July 2008 he arrived in the Philippines and reported immediately to
Intercrew Shipping and Ortega as the President / General Manager of Intercrew
Shipping and requested for medical assistance but to no avail. Calantoc made several
request but was repeatedly refused. He then consulted a doctor at his own expense.
In 2009, Calantoc underwent a MRI examination which revealed a large
convexity meningioma, a tumor in the left frontal region, then he was admitted at UST
Hospital due to dysphasia. He was also assessed with meningioma, left parietal convexity,
hypertension stage 2. On his 10th day at the hospital he underwent a surgery on his skull.
Calantoc claims that because of illness he was unable to return to his customary
work as a seafarer for more than 120 days. Still, petitioner refused to grant him disability
benefits. He filed a complaint claiming disability compensation, payment of medical
expenses, damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner asserted that there was no accident or medical incident that happened on
board the vessel during employment and Calantoc requested to be signed off only due to high
blood and refused to undergo post-employment medical examination and opted to collect his
final pay and even executed a release in petitioners favor. For them Calantoc failed to prove
that he suffered work-related illness during employment and Calantoc’s claim has been stale
by his inaction for 2 years when he was repatriated on 2008 and only filed complaint in 2010.

For Labor Arbiter:

Intercrew Shipping is ordered to pay complainant US$60,000.00 as full disability
benefits plus 10% for attorney’s fees. Also they should reimburse P557,062.50 as medical
expense plus US$2,800.00 as sickness wage. All other claims are dismissed.

For NLRC:
Commissioner De Castro rendered a dissenting opinion stating that Calantoc’s
illness is compensable. However, the appeal is granted, decision of Labor Arbiter is set aside
and complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. Calantoc filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
this was denied by NLRC through a resolution.

For CA:
CA finds merit on the petition and approved dissenting opinion of Commissioner De
Castro as to why Calantoc's illness is compensable. The NLRC resolution is annulled and set
aside. The decision of Labor Arbiter is reinstated with modification as to attorney’s fee for
US$1,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine peso.
Petitioners filed a Motion for reconsideration but it was denied hence this instant
petition.
 ISSUE AND RULING:
Whether Calantoc is entitled to disability benefits?

Yes, under POEA-SEC, an injury or illness is considered compensable if:

1. The injury or illness must be work related.

2. The work related injury or illness must have existed during the term of seafarers’
employment contract.
“Work related injury” under 2000 POEA-SEC is defined as injury/injuries resulting
in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment.
“Work related illness” is any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of
an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of contract with the conditions set therein:
1. Seafarer’s work must involve risk described therein.
2. Disease was contracted as a result of seafarer’s exposure to described risks.
3. Disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under other factor necessary to
contract it.
4. No notorious negligence on the part of seafarer.
In this case, Pre-employment Medical Examination reveals that he has a high
blood pressure. It is beyond dispute that his mild stroke is compensable disease under
Section 32-A of 2000 POEA-SEC as correctly found by NLRC.
Court adheres to findings of both LA and CA that petitioners despite knowing
that Calantoc has high blood pressure, gave him a clean bill of health, before deployment
which leads to a conclusion that whatever illness Calantoc suffers on board is work-
related. It goes without saying that Calantoc’s work as seafarer could have attributed to
the development of his meningioma.
Court adopts Commissioner De Castro’s Dissenting Opinion which states that
nature and condition of Calantoc’s work took part in the resulting illness which he had
suffered. It is Calantoc’s exposure to extreme temperatures brought about by harshness
of sea travel and elements of the sea, the quality and condition of food he eats as well as
strain and stress brought about by duties and tasks. The nature and risk increased the
risk of contracting the illness or aggravated his preexisting hypertension that led to
stroke. The contribution of work to the development or aggravation of disease is enough
to warrant compensation. Due to lack of proper medication after repatriation, Calantoc’s
condition worsened. Despite having been discovered or diagnosed 6 months after
complainants repatriation, the illness nevertheless manifested when he suffered a stroke
while on board the vessel. Petitioners having engaged Calantoc as hypersensitive, they
should now accept the liability for his ensuing ailment in the course of his employment.
It is not required that an employee be in perfect health when he contracted the
illness to be able to recover disability compensation. Once an employer takes employee
as he finds them, he already assumes the risk of liability.
In sum even if Calantoc has preexisting high blood pressure he was initially
declared fit for sea duty during his PEME. His meningioma is presumed to have been
brought by nature of employment and occurred during employment. This goes without
saying that Calantoc is entitle to a total and permanent disability benefits because he
would not be able to resume to his position as fourth engineer or be hired by maritime
employers.
Section 20 (B)(6) of POEA-SEC mandates employer to pay seafarer disability
benefits for his permanent disability caused by work related illness or injury once there
is a finding of permanent either total or partial disability within 120 day period or 240
day period.
Permanent disability means a permanent reduction of the earning power of a
seafarer to perform future sea or on board duties.
 Permanent disability benefits serve as a means to alleviate seafarer’s financial
condition on account of the level of injury or illness he incurred or contracted.
The court is clear that POEA-SEC must be construed fairly, reasonably and liberally
in favor of seafarer in the pursuit of his employment on board ocean-going vessels.

Zonio Jr.
vs.
88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc.
Facts:
Apolinario was hired as an "ordinary seaman" by 88 Aces to board the vessel MV
Algosaibi 42. His contract was for a duration of six months with a basic monthly salary of
US$506.15. As an ordinary seaman, Apolinario's job on board the vessel included the
following: 1) give assistance to the able seaman; 2) assist in the handling and operation of all
deck gear such as topping, cradling and housing of booms; 3) aid the carpenter in the repair
work when requested; and 4) to scale and chip paint, handle lines in the mooring of the ship,
assist in the actual tying up and letting go of the vessel and stand as a lookout in the vessel.
After completing his six-month contract with 88 Aces in August 2010, Apolinario however
was not repatriated as he directly entered into a new contract with 88 Aces' foreign principal,
Khalifa Algosaibi. His new contract with Khalifa Algosaibi lasted until April 2012.
In April 2012, Apolinario was repatriated in Manila. On May 8, 2015, he filed a
Complaint before the Labor Arbiter against 88 Aces, Jocson and Khalifa Algosaibi for the
payment of disability benefits, attorney's fees, medical fees, sickness allowance and moral,
exemplary and compensatory damages. Apolinario alleged that while on board MV Algosaibi
42 in December 2010, he suddenly experienced dizziness. He was found to have high glucose
and cholesterol. after two years Apolinario alleged that his dizziness recurred, accompanied
by the blurring of his vision he returned to As Salama Hospital where he was diagnosed to
have diabetes mellitus and dislipedemia. After his repatriation to the Philippines on April 11,
2012, Apolinario posited that he immediately reported to the office of 88 Aces to get his
unpaid wages and for him to be referred to the company physician. However, since his
repatriation was due to the completion of his six-month Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA)-approved employment contract, he was allegedly told by President
Janet Jocson that 88 Aces could not shoulder his medical expenses.
Subsequently, Apolinario was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus by Dr. Joseph Glenn
Dimatatac and was declared physically unfit to continue work due to his hyperglycemia by
Dr Luna. Apolinario demanded from respondents the payment of his disability benefits
arguing that it was work related however it was denied. According to him, his stress was a
factor in the development of his diabetes mellitus since he was exposed to frequent overtime,
lack of sleep, and emotional/psychological stress for being away from his family.
Respondents argued that Apolinario finished his six-month POEA-approved
employment contract in August 2010 without any medical issue whatsoever. since the filing
of his Complaint was made five years after the completion of his contract in August 2010, his
cause of action had already prescribed for not having been filed within the three-year
prescriptive period and he actually failed to comply with the three-day post-employment
medical examination requirement.

Labor Arbiter:
The action has not prescribed yet. The Labor Arbiter explained that under Section 18
of the POEA-approved employment contract, the seafarer's contract with the employer is
effective until the date of his arrival at the point of hire. All claims arising from the contract
should be made within three years from the date the cause of action arose. since Apolinario's
arrival at the point of hire was April 11, 2012, he had until April 11, 2015 within which to
institute his action. Thus, he was able to institute his claim against respondents within the
reglementary period when he filed his Request for Single Entry Approach (SENA) at the
NLRC in March 2015.
the Labor Arbiter found that Apolinario, while on board, was exposed to physical and
psychological stress due to rush jobs, lack of sleep and homesickness. Inasmuch as stress
can prompt an increase in the level of one's blood sugar, the Labor Arbiter found nexus
between Apolinario's nature of work and his ailment diabetes mellitus.

NLRC:
NLRC granted respondent’s Appeal. The NLRC ratiocinated that the findings of
Apolinario's physicians cannot be accorded weight since their medical certificates were only
issued on March 17, 2015 and June 15, 2015—about three years or more from Apolinario's
repatriation on April 11, 2012. Apolinario failed to establish that his illness was work-
related and that he requested for a post-employment medical examination, his claim for
disability benefits must be denied.

CA:
The CA affirmed the NLRC's Decision and dismissed Apolinario's Petition. The CA
held that Apolinario's repatriation was due to the completion of his contract and that
Apolinario had no complaint whatsoever when he disembarked from the vessel. the CA
pointed out that Apolinario was no longer a subject of any POEA Standard Employment
Contract (SEC) when he was found unfit to work. Furthermore, Apolinario’s failure to
undergo post-employment medical examination he cannot be entitled to disability benefits.

Issues:
1. Whether Diabetes Mellitus is a work-related illness.
2. Whether Apolinario’s failure to undergo for post-employment medical
examination result to forfeiture of the disability benefit.
3. Whether the action has prescribed.
4. Whether Apolinario is entitled for sickness allowance and benefit.

Rulings:
1. Yes. The 2000 POEA-SEC provides that any sickness resulting in disability because
of an occupational disease listed under Section 32(A) of this Contract is deemed to be work-
related, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-
SEC, on the other hand, declares that if the illness, such as diabetes mellitus, is not listed as
an occupational disease under Section 32(A), the ailment is disputably presumed as work-
related.
While the illness is not listed as one of the occupational diseases under Section
32(A) of the POEA-SEC, the ailment is presumed work-related under Section 20(B)(4)
of the contract. Respondents are duty bound to overcome this presumption. However,
other than their bare allegation, respondents did not present a scintilla of proof to
establish the lack of casual connection between Apolinario's disease and his
employment as a seafarer. Had respondents granted Apolinario's request to undergo a post-
employment medical check-up, they could have presented a medical finding to contradict the
presumption of work-relatedness of Apolinario's illness. It is medically accepted that stress
has major effects on a person's metabolic activity. In diabetes, because of a relative or
absolute lack of insulin, the increase in blood glucose on account of stress cannot be
adequately metabolized. Thus, stress is a potential contributor to chronic hyperglycemia in
diabetes.
To prove that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of
contracting the disease, Apolinario showed that part of his duties as an Ordinary
Seaman in MV Algosaibi 42 involved strenuous workload such as assist in the handling
and operation of all deck gear such as topping, cradling and housing of booms; aid the
carpenter in the repair work when requested; scale and chip paint, handle lines in the
mooring of the ship, assist in the actual tying up and letting go of the vessel and stand as
a lookout in the vessel. Apolinario further stated that while inside the vessel for several
months, he was exposed to physical and psychological stress due to rush jobs, lack of
sleep, heat stress, emergency works and homesickness for being away from his family.

2. No. While the requirement to report within three working days from repatriation appears
to be indispensable in character, there are some established exceptions to this rule: (1) when
the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his repatriation; and (2) when
the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-
employment medical examination by a company designated physician.
As aptly noted by the Labor Arbiter, Apolinario repeatedly experienced dizziness
and headaches, and needed medical attention while on board MV Algosaibi 42. In fact,
because of his recurring sickness, he was examined twice at As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar
Saudi Arabia and even underwent thorough treatment thereat 10 days prior to his
repatriation to Manila. Given Apolinario's sensitive medical condition days prior to his
repatriation, We find dubious respondents' allegation that Apolinario did not request to
be referred to post-employment medical examination when he arrived in Manila.
Apolinario's medical condition during and: after his employment on board lends
credence to his claim that he asked to be medically examined by a company-designated
physician but he was prevented so by respondents.

3. No. Sec. 18 of the Standard term and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels provides that the employment of the seafarer shall
cease when the seafarer completes his period of contractual service aboard the vessel,
signs off from the vessel and arrives at the point of hire. A contract between an employer
and a seafarer ceases upon its completion, when the seafarer signs off from the vessel
and arrives at the point of hire. In this case, while Apolinario's six-month contract may
have ended as early as August 2010, he nonetheless was able to sign off from MV
Algosaibi 42 and arrive at the point of hire only on April 11, 2012.
Section 30 of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides that all claims arising from this Contract shall
be made within three (3) years from the date the cause of action arises otherwise the
same shall be barred. As Apolinario's disembarkation from Algosaibi 42 was on April 11,
2012, he had three years from the date, or until April 11, 2015, to make a claim for
disability benefits. Records show that Apolinario had requested for a SENA before the
NLRC as early as March 25, 2015. SENA being a pre-requisite to the filing of a
Complaint before the Labor Arbiter, the date when Apolinario should be deemed to
have instituted his claim was when he instituted his Request for SENA on March 25,
2015. Considering that the expiration of Apolinario's cause of action was on April 11,
2015, his claim was filed well within the 3-year prescriptive period.

4. Yes. Under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the amount of sickness allowance
that the seafarer shall receive from his employer shall be in an amount equivalent to his basic
wage computed at the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work, or the degree of
disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but shall in no case
exceed 120 days. Considering that no assessment was made at bar by the company designated
physician, Apolinario is entitled to a sickness allowance equivalent to 120 days. His basic
pay being US$506.00 per month or US$16.866 per day, he should be awarded
US$2,024.00 as sickness allowance, or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency.
Anent, Apolinario's claim for attorney's fees, Article 2208 of the New Civil Code provides
that attorney's fees can be recovered in actions for the recovery of wages of laborers and
actions for indemnity under employer's liability laws. Attorney's fees is also recoverable
when the respondent's act or omission has compelled the complainant to incur expenses
to protect his interest. Such conditions being present in the case at bar, we find that an
award of attorney's fees is warranted in favor of Apolinario.
 Chan (Petitioner)
vs
Magsaysay Maritime Corp., Intl NV and/or Ho (Respondent)

FACTS:
In 2012, Magsaysay Maritime Corp in behalf of its principal CSCS Intl NV engaged
Chan’s services as fireman on board Costa Voyager-D/E. Chan then boarded the vessel.
In 2013, Chan felt severe pain after he slipped and hit his right knee on deck
during a regular boat drill. He was treated at the ship’s hospital and was given a pain
medication and advised to rest. On May his right knee got swollen and could hardly
walk and sleep then he was brought to a hospital in Turkey and was given a pain
medication. As he could no longer work he was repatriated.
Upon his return in the Philippines, he reported to respondents office and was
referred to company-designated physician at the Maritime Medical Center. He was
diagnosed with gouty arthritis with meniscal tear and advised to undergo surgery but
he refused. He was advised to take medication and rehabilitation instead. On June he
requested more time to think whether to undergo surgery.
On July, the company designated physician issued disability Grade 10. He was
provided further therapy and medication. On August the company designated physician
noted that he had attained maximum medical cure and was given final assessment of
Disability Grade 10. After ninety-six (96) days since his repatriation, Chan then
manifested decision to undergo surgery which respondents agreed to provide. He was
admitted for surgery 3 months after repatriation. Despite surgery his condition did not
improve. On October the company designated physician noted that he had already
attained maximum medical cure with Grade 10 disability. Due to persistent pain and
respondents’ continued silence on whether he could resume his seafarer duties, he
consulted a medical expert who issued a Medical report declaring him unfit for sea duty
due to persistent pain on knee, swelling and limited movement. So he asked respondent
for total permanent disability benefits but to no avail.
Respondents countered that Chan had no cause of action since he did not follow
procedure in contesting findings of company designated physician. He had prematurely filed
the complaint without seeking second opinion from physician of his own choice. Any
medical document Chan may have later submitted would only be a mere afterthought for
sole purpose of claiming total disability benefits. Chan’s delayed treatment which
exceeds 120 days should be attributed to him as he himself requested more time to
decide whether to undergo surgery. Chan can only be entitled to a limit of Grade 10
disability as assessed by company designated physician. They say that they were never in
bad faith in dealing with Chan and Ho should be dropped as a party respondent since
Chan and Ho has no employer-employee relationship.

FOR LRA:
It found that Chan was not informed of the company designated physician’s final
assessment even after lapse of 240 days from medical repatriation. He was left with no
other alternative but to consult an independent physician to evaluate his condition.
Labor arbiter awarded total permanent disability based on POEA Contract but denies other
claims for lack of merit. Respondent to pay US$60,000.00

FOR NLRC:
Affirmed LRA ruling with modification awarding atty’s fee and NLRC denied
respondents Motion for Reconsideration.

FOR CA:
CA reduced the award to Grade 10, Chan disregarded conflict resolution
procedure under the POEA-SEC when he did not refer the conflicting findings on
extent of his disability to third doctor. Thus, findings of the company-designated
physician must prevail. Seafarer’s incapacity to work after lapse of more than 120 days
from the time he suffered an injury and/or illness is not a magical incantation that
automatically warrants the grant of total and permanent disability benefits in his favor
since jurisprudence has extended this period to 240 days. Only 169 days passed from
Chan’s repatriation for medical treatment until the company designated physician gave
him a Grade 10 rating. CA denied Chan’s Motion for Reconsideration.

CHANS CONTENTION:
He is not duty bound to avail conflict resolution procedure under Sec 20-B(3) of
POEA-SEC since respondents deliberately refused to furnish him a copy of company-
designated physicians final assessment after his medical treatment was discontinued. He
was deemed totally and permanently disabled by operation of law. The grade 10
assessment issued to him cannot be the final assessment within the contemplation of
law. He asserts that the final assessment is not compliant with law and jurisprudence.
There was no categorical declaration of his fitness to work as seafarer despite Grade 10
assessment issued by company-designated doctor. There was no discussion on
implication on his capacity to return to work as seafarer.
Under the law, Grade 2 to 14 assessments must include a certification that the
seafarer remains fit to work as seafarer, otherwise it can only be considered as asn
interim assessment. There was no definitive assessment from company designated physician.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
That Chan's Grade 10 disability was already assessed not once but twice, prior to
his surgery and after his surgery. The complaint was prematurely filed without seeking
second or third opinion. It was only when Chan filed his position paper that he belatedly
presented a medical report issued by alleged physician of choice. At the time the complaint
was filed, petitioner did not as yet consult any personal physician for his disability
assessment. The two conflicting medical findings were not referred to a third doctor, the
findings of the company designated physician pertaining to Grade 10 disability must
prevail.

ISSUES AND RULING:

The employment of seafarer is governed by the contracts they signed at the time
of their engagement. So long as the stipulations in these contracts are not contrary to law,
morals, public order or public policy, they have the force of law as between the parties.
While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA
Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer’s
contract.
Section 20. Compensation and Benefits: The liabilities of the employer when the
seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board the ship.
2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be
liable for the full cost of such medical serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and
lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. If after repatriation, the seafarer still
requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the
employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the
company-designated physician.
3. In addition, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent
to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of
disability has been assessed by the company designated physician. The period within which the seafarer
shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days . Payment of the sickness allowance
shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
 The seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by
a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except
when he is physically incapacitated to do so, where a written notice to the agency
within the same period is deemed compliance. During treatment, seafarer shall also report
regularly to the company designated physician and agreed to by seafarer. Failure of
seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture
of the right to claim benefits. If a doctor appointed by seafarer disagrees with
assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer.
Third doctors decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
Section 20 (A) (6) of 2010 POEA-SEC provides that seafarer’s disability shall not be
measured by the number of days the seafarer underwent a treatment. -- “the disability
shall be based solely on the disability grading provided under section 32 of this contract, and
shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment of
the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid.”
In Olidana vs Jebsens Maritime Inc, court ruled that before disability grading be
considered, it should be properly established and contained in a valid and timely
medical report of company designated physician which should be complete and
appropriately issued.

Is the petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits?

Yes. Chan is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
In disability compensation cases, it is not the injury which is compensated, but the
incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.
Total disability refers to an employee's inability to perform his or her usual work.
It does not require total paralysis or complete helplessness while Permanent disability, is
a worker's inability to perform his or her job for more than one hundred twenty (120)
days, or two hundred forty (240) days if the seafarer required further medical attention
justifying the extension of the temporary total disability period, regardless of whether he
loses the use of any part of his body. All told, Chan is rightfully entitled to total and
permanent disability benefits
While respondents' medical report dated 29 October 2013 claims that
complainant reached maximum care and that he was assessed by company doctors to be
suffering from a disability grade 10, there is no concrete proof that said final assessment
was actually relayed to complainant within the 240 day period.
But petitioner is not entitled to moral damages. He is also likewise not entitled to
exemplary damages. Labor arbiter correctly denied petitioners claim for moral and exemplary
damages for lack of basis.
Respondents never evaded liability from petitioner’s claim, albeit insisted that
petitioner’s disability should remain at grade 10. Respondents even provided and financed
petitioner’s surgery on the affected knee and the consequent therapy and treatment.
Respondents were never in bad faith in facilitating the repatriation and treatment of
petitioner.
Even then, the fact that petitioner was compelled to litigate to protect his rights, the
NLRC correctly awarded attorney’s fees of 10% of the total monetary award in accordance
with Article 2208 of New Civil Code.
Lastly, the court imposes on the monetary awards legal interest at 6% per annum
from the date of finality of this decision until full payment.
 Is the after-surgery medical assessment of the company-designated physician
complete, final and definite?
No. True that the company issued his medical assessment disability twice. Prior to
surgery and after surgery, but the latter medical assessment fell short of the parameters
laid down by jurisprudence as final medical assessment.
Under POEA-SEC, company-designated doctor is primarily vested with the
responsibility to determine the disability grading or fitness to work of seafarers. To be
conclusive, report must be complete and definite for purposes of ascertaining the degree
of the seafarer’s disability benefits.
In a case decided by Supreme Court, it emphasized the importance of final and
definite disability assessment. It is necessary in order to truly reflect extent of sickness
or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work. A definite declaration
by the company designated physician is an obligation, the abdication of which transforms
temporary total disability to permanent total disability regardless of disability grade.
The medical assessment issued by company-designated physician did not show
how the disability assessment was arrived at. The assessment merely stated that the
petitioner had attained maximum medical treatment and declared petitioners disability
at Grade 10. A declaration of disability in the medical assessment without more cannot
be considered complete, final and definitive.
The medical assessment was not timely nor properly issued.
Although Section 20(A)(6) of 2010 POEA-SEC instructs that disability shall not be
measured or determined by number of days a seafarer is under treatment, as to when the
fitness of seafarer for sea duty may be ascertained is still subject to the periods prescribed by
law.
Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor code provides disabilities that shall be deemed total
and permanent, Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more that 120 days,
except as provided otherwise in the Rules.
The company designated physician failed to issue medical assessment within 120
day period owing to petitioners request for time to decide whether to undergo surgery.
Although this delay should be attributed to petitioner and might have justified an extension
of the period for the company designated physician to issue an assessment within 240 days,
this circumstance does not preclude petitioner from recovering total permanent disability
benefits.
The fact that assessment was not actually relayed to or made known to
petitioner within extended 240 day period is fatal to company's defense.
In the absence of any written proofs, respondent are estopped from claiming that
complainant was duly informed by the company of his disability grading or was offered by
the company doctor’s assessment several times during conferences which he refused. There is
nothing on the record to support respondents self-serving claim.
 While respondents after surgery medical report claims that he has reached maximum
care and that he was assessed by company doctors to be suffering from disability grade 10,
there’s no concrete proof that the final assessment was actually relayed to complainant
withing 240 days.

Is the referral to a third doctor mandatory?

No. Because a complete, final and definite medical assessment from company-
designated physician is absent, aside from the fact that the after surgery medical
assessment was not actually relayed to petitioner. It is the issuance and corresponding
conveyance to the employee of the final medical assessment by the company designated
physician that triggers the application of Section 20(A)(3) of 2010 POEA-SEC.
Third-doctor rule does not apply when there is no valid final and definitive
assessment from a company designated physician.

Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, explained the requisites governing a seafarer's claim for
total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer.
Thus, it was ruled citing the case of Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc., et al. v. Quiogue, Jr., 765 Phil.
341, 363 (2015) the Court further summarized the rules governing a seafarer's claim for total and permanent
disability benefits by a seafarer, viz.:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's
disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days,
without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with
a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then
the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that
the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of
240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
Two (2) requisites, therefore, must concur:
1. an assessment must be issued within the 120/240-day window, and
2. the assessment must be final and definitive.