PEME NOT EXPLORATORY

NYK-Fil Ship Management Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, (G.R. No.

161104, [September 27, 2006], 534 PHIL 725-740)

“While a PEME may reveal enough for petitioners to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas

employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health.

The PEME could not have divulged respondent's illness considering that the examinations were

not exploratory. It was only after respondent was subjected to extensive medical procedures

including MRI of the thoracic and lumbosacral spine that respondent's illness was finally

diagnosed as a case of avascular necrosis of the hip with septic arthritis.

xxx

For respondent to thus claim that the issuance of a clean bill of health to a seafarer after a PEME

means that his illness was acquired during the seafarer's employment is a non sequitor.

We do not agree with the respondent's claim that by the issuance of a clean bill of health to

Roberto, made by the physicians selected/accredited by the petitioners, it necessarily follows that

the illness for which her husband died was acquired during his employment as a fisherman for

the petitioners.

The pre-employment medical examination conducted on Roberto could not have divulged the

disease for which he died, considering the fact that most, if not all, are not so exploratory. The

disease of GFR, which is an indicator of chronic renal failure, is measured thru the renal function
test. In pre-employment examination, the urine analysis (urinalysis), which is normally included

measures only the creatinine, the presence of which cannot conclusively indicate chronic renal

failure.”

Francisco v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., (G.R. No. 190545, [November 22, 2010], 650

PHIL 200-207)

“That petitioner was subsequently rehired by respondents despite knowledge of his seizure

attacks does not make the latter a guarantor of his health. A seafarer only needs to pass the

mandatory PEME in order to be deployed on duty at sea. Notably, petitioner was consistently

declared "fit to work" at sea after every PEME. However, while PEME may reveal enough for

respondents to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied

upon as reflective of petitioner's true state of health. The PEME could not have revealed

petitioner's illness as the examinations were not exploratory.”

Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc., (G.R. No. 185412, [November

16, 2011], 676 PHIL 313-329)

“The Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) he underwent cannot serve as enough

basis to justify a finding of a total and permanent disability because of its non-exploratory nature.

The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. We have ruled

that in the past the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally

in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME

merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service," it does not
 state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the "fit to work" declaration in the

respondent's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any

ailment prior to his deployment. Thus we held in NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v.

NLRC:

While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer

is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a

seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondent's illness

considering that the examinations were not exploratory.

Besides, it was not expressly stated in his medical diagnosis that his illness was equivalent to a

total and permanent disability. Absent any indication, the Court cannot accommodate him.”

Philman Marine Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban, (G.R. No. 186509, [July 29, 2013], 715 PHIL

454-483)

“Contrary to Armando's contention, the PEME is not sufficiently exhaustive so as to excuse his

non-disclosure of his pre-existing hypertension. The PEME is not exploratory and does not allow

the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is

suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than

a summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition and is just enough for the

employer to determine his fitness for the nature of the work for which he is to be employed.

In Escarcha v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., we brushed aside the seafarer's claim that he acquired

his illness during his employment simply because he passed the PEME. There, we held that "a

PEME . . . is generally not exploratory in nature, nor is it a totally in-depth and thorough
examination of an applicant's medical condition. . . . [I]t does not reveal the real state of health of

an applicant" 58 In this case, considering that the PEME is not exploratory, its failure to reveal or

uncover Armando's hypertension cannot therefore shield him from the consequences of his

willful concealment of this information and preclude the petitioners from denying his claim on

the ground of concealment.”

Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Simbajon, (G.R. No. 203472, [July 9, 2014], 738 PHIL 824-

849)

“To support his contention, Simbajon also pointed out that his PEME results cleared him from

pre-identified diseases including Diabetes mellitus. This is a point, however, that we have

considered in other rulings. In Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, we noted that it is an

accepted rule that PEMEs are usually not exploratory in nature. The tests conducted are not

intended to be an in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. They

merely determine whether the examinee is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service"; they do not

describe the real state of health of an applicant.

Thus, Simbajon cannot rely on his PEME results alone to support his claim that his disease only

developed after embarkation. This is particularly true since several points during his treatment,

his DM Type II was found to be asymptomatic, i.e., as symptomless or presenting no subjective

evidence of disease. 60 Thus, it is probable that Simbajon's disease was already pre-existing even

before he boarded NCL's vessel; his diabetes was not detected because it was asymptomatic.”
Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Utanes, (G.R. No. 236498 (Resolution), [September

16, 2020])

“Time and again, it has been ruled that a PEME is generally not exploratory in nature, nor is it a

totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. It does not reveal

the real state of health of an applicant, and does not allow the employer to discover any and all

pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be

taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer's

physiological condition and is just enough for the employer to determine his fitness for the

nature of the work for which he is to be employed. Since it is not exploratory, its failure to reveal

or uncover Utanes' ailments cannot shield him from the consequences of his deliberate

concealment. The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show

that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.”

Leonides P. Rillera, vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc. And/or Belships Management

(Singapore) Ltd., (G.R. No. 235336, June 23, 2020)

“Lerona enunciated that passing a PEME is not and cannot excuse willful concealment. Neither

can it preclude rejection of disability claims. PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the

employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is

suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than

a summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition; it merely determines whether

one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it does not state the real state of health of an

applicant. The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that

he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.59

For not disclosing his previous diagnoses and treatment for hypertension and diabetes, petitioner

is guilty of material concealment and is disqualified for any compensation and benefits.”