Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In 1976, respondents Naess Shipping Phils.
Inc. (Naess) and DOLE UK, Ltd. (DOLE)
hired petitioner Andres L. Dizon (Dizon) as
cook for its various vessels until the
termination of his contract in 2007.
In 2006, Dizon was hired as Chief Cook and boarded DOLE
Colombia.
After completing his contract in 2007, he went on a vacation,
and was called for another employment contract after a
month.
2
3
2
When he underwent PEME4, he was: [1] declared unfit for
sea duties due to uncontrolled hypertension and coronary
artery disease, as certified by the doctors of the Marine
Medical and Laboratory Clinic (MMLC); and [2] referred to
undergo stress test and ECG5.
He then went to PMP Diagnostic Center Inc. for diagnostic
tests, and was also recommended to undergo Angioplasty.
His treadmill stress test showed that he had Abnormal Stress
Echocardiography. Thus:
Abnormal Stress Echocardiography at 10.2 METS with
evidence of stress-inducible ischemic myocardium at risk
involving the left anterior descending and right coronary
artery territories.
4
5
3
1.
2.
3.
LABOR ARBITER Veneranda V. Guerrero
4
to overcome the presumption of compensability in favor of
the seafarer.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered ordering Naess Shipping Phils. Inc.
and/ or DOLE UK (Ltd.), jointly and severally, to pay
complainant Andres L. Dizon the Philippine peso
equivalent at the time of actual payment of US
DOLLARS
SIXTY
THOUSAND
DOLLARS
(US$60,000.00) representing permanent total
disability benefits, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as
and for attorney's fees or the aggregate amount of US
DOLLARS SIXTY SIX THOUSAND (US$66,000.00). All
other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION: On appeal, the NLRC reversed
and set aside the LA decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is
GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring
Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. and/or DOLE UK (Ltd.) jointly
and severally liable to pay Andres L. Dizon US Dollars Sixty
Six Thousand Pesos (US$66,000.00) is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. However, for humanitarian considerations,
taking into account complainant's unblemished record of
thirty (30) years of service to respondents, the latter are
hereby directed to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
financial assistance to complainant.
SO ORDERED.
COURT OF APPEALS: Dizon assailed the
NLRC's reversal of the LA's decision before the CA
through a petition for certiorari.
Is
6
Settled is the rule that the entitlement of seamen on
overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not
only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. 6
Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract
(POEA-SEC)7 reads:
Section 20-B. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or
Illness. The liabilities of the employer when the
seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during
the term of his contract are as follows:
xx
xx
6
7
Austria v. Crystal Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 206256, February 24, 2016.
Department Order No. 4, series of 2000, "Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Goveming the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going
Vessels."
Intellectual Property of ODESSA GRACE E. GONZAGA
7
xxx
xxx
xxx
8
9
10
11
Ceriola v. Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 193101I, April 20, 2015
G.R. No. 185352, August IO, 2011, 671 Phil 56-70.
Ibid. (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied).
G.R. No. 181921, September 17, 2014.
Intellectual Property of ODESSA GRACE E. GONZAGA
8
The rationale for the rule [on mandatory postemployment medical examination within three days
from repatriation by a company-designated physician]
is that reporting the illness or injury within three
days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for
a physician to determine the cause of the illness
or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the
illness or injury beyond the period may prove
difficult. To ignore the rule might set a precedent
with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to
a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability
benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who
would have difficulty determining the cause of a
claimant's illness because of the passage of time. The
employer would then have no protection against
unrelated disability claims.12
12
13
14
9
Dizon alleged that the failure to comply with the mandatory
reporting and examination requirement merely forfeits his
claim for sickness allowance.
To substantiate such claim, Dizon invokes the following rules
in statutory construction:
(a) Courts should not incorporate
provided in law by judicial ruling;
matters not
(b) The court must look into the spirit of the law or
the reason for it in construing a statute;
(c)
10
prevailing during his employment on board the vessel are
characterized, among others, by stress, heavy workload,
over-fatigue.
It is settled that a person who claims entitlement to the
benefits provided by law must establish his right thereto by
substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion."15 Hence, the burden is on the seafarer to prove
that he suffered from a work-related injury or illness during
the term of his contract.16 Dizon has the burden to prove
through substantial evidence that he is entitled to disability
benefits, which includes evidence that his illness is workrelated and existed during the terms of his contract.
Section 20 (B)(6) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
15
16
Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Aligway Phil., G.R. No. 201793, September 16, 2015.
Ibid.
Intellectual Property of ODESSA GRACE E. GONZAGA
11
(2) the work-related injury or illness must have
existed during the term of the seafarer's
employment contract.17
2.
3.
4.
17
18
19
12
precipitated by the unusual strain by reasons of
the nature of his work.
b.
c.
Bautista v. Elhurg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 206032, August 19,
2015
Intellectual Property of ODESSA GRACE E. GONZAGA
13
symptoms or signs of heart illness in the performance of his
work during the term of his contract, and that such
symptoms persisted. Although his hypertension was known
to the respondents, there was no evidence to prove that the
strain caused by Dizon's work aggravated his heart
condition. There was no proof that he reported his illness
while on board and after his repatriation. He did not present
any written note, request, or record about any medical
check-up, consultation or treatment during the term of his
contract.
All that Dizon put forward is a dogged insistence that his
working conditions are proof enough that his work as a Chief
Cook contributed to his contracting the disease, and that the
short period between his repatriation and the PEME
validates his claim that he contracted his illness during the
term of his contract and is work-related.
It is noted that the POEA provisions must be applied fairly,
reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers, for it is
only then that its beneficent provisions can be fully carried
into effect.21 However, this catchphrase cannot be taken to
sanction the award of disability benefits and sickness
allowance based on flimsy evidence and even in the face of
an unjustified non-compliance with the 3-day mandatory
reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC.22
While the Court sympathizes with Dizon's predicament, it
was constrained to deny the instant petition for failure to
establish by substantial evidence that:
1.
21
22
Supra., note 7.
Ibid.
Intellectual Property of ODESSA GRACE E. GONZAGA
14
2.
Dizons illness was contracted during the term of his contract and