CASE DIGEST

Name : Rhoda C. Santillan

Program : MBA-HRMD
Subject : PERSONNEL AND LABOR LAW (Block 1) AM - 7.30 12:00 NN
Professor : ATTY. MUNDLYN MARTIN

[G.R. No. 123619. June 8, 2000.]

SEAGULL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT, INC., and DOMINION INSURANCE

CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
BENJAMIN T. TUAZON, Respondents.

FACTS:

On March 17, 1991, petitioner deployed respondent Benjamin T. Tuazon, (now

deceased and represented by this daughter in the instant case) to work as radio officer
on board its vessel, MV Pixy Maru for a period of 12 months. Prior to his deployment
and as a condition to final hiring, Benjamin was to submit to a medical examination with
the petitioner’s accredited clinic, the LDM Clinic and Laboratory. The medical
examination consisted among others, of the standard X-ray exposure, and urine test. In
1986, complaint underwent a heart surgery for an insertion of a pacemaker, so
petitioner’s accredited clinic required Benjamin to secure from his cardiologist a
certification to the effect that he could do normal physical activities. Consequently, he
was declared fit to work. While on board the vessel, however, Benjamin suffered bouts
of coughing and shortness of breathing. He was immediately sent and confined to a
hospital in Japan from December 12 to 27, 1991. Due to the medical findings that an
open heart surgery was needed, he was repatriated back in the Philippines on
December 28, 1991. Upon arrival, Seagull referred him to its accredited physician and
an open-heart surgery was performed, with Benjamin shouldering all the costs and
expenses. He later filed a complaint asking for sickness and disability benefits with the
POEA.
The POEA rendered a decision in favor of respondent Benjamin Tuazon and ordered
herein petitioners to pay US2, 200 dollars representing 120 days sickness benefits, and
the amount of US15, 000.00 dollar representing the permanent disability benefits
provided for under Appendix “A” of the POEA Standard Contract. On appeal, the NLRC
affirmed the POEA’s judgment, finding that it was sufficiently established that herein
petitioners’ physician already knew, as early as June 1989, of the existence of
complainant’s pacemaker, the main reason why they asked him to submit a medical
certificate to the effect that he could do normal physical activities.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is entitled to sickness benefits and permanent disability

benefits?
HELD:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground there is no merit in
petitioners’ suggestion that private respondent did not make a full disclosure of his
medical history because the records reveal that private respondents was deployed by
petitioners twice already., the first one being in 1989 and the second one being in 1991.
Under the employment contract, compensability of the illness or death of seamen
need not depend on whether the illness was work connected or not. It is sufficient that
the illness occurred during the term of the employment contract.
It is not necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the employees must have
been in perfect health at the time he contracted the disease. If the disease is the
proximate cause of the employee’s death for which compensation is sought, the
previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant, and recovery may be had
for said death, independently of any pre-existing disease.