More Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Homicillada
307 SCRA 189, GR No. 124927, May 18, 1999
FACTS:
Petitioner hired private respondent Homicillada as an oiler on board the vessel MV Rhine and he boarded the vessel at Port Sete, France on February 5, 1994. When the vessel was anchored in Brazil, Homicillada was tasked to clean the main engine, and the first and second cylinders of the air trunk, which he did four consecutive days. As he went about his work, he experienced pain on his left leg which began to swell thereafter. The ship doctor said Homicillada should be allowed to rest for five days, but the Captain still required him to work. On April 27, 1994, he was repatriated to the Philippines and underwent a series of physical examinations. The ACT-scan image of Homicillada’s lower back revealed a “slipped-disc,” so the diagnostic center suggested laminectomy and dissection on his lower back to alleviate his pain. However, petitioner disregarded the recommendation and proposed instead a pelvic traction treatment, a less costly procedure, which did not improve Homicillada’s condition. Homicillada filed a compliant to the POEA for disability and medical benefits as well as for payment of his two months basic salary which petitioners had withheld.
The POEA sustained Homicillada and ordered petitioners jointly and severally to pay Homicillada US$1,642.30 or 14.93% of US$11,000.00. Appealing to the NLRC, Homicillada insisted that he was entitled to more than the amount decreed by the POEA, while petitioners asserted that his sickness was not work-connected and was in fact already in existence prior to his deployment abroad. The NLRC increased the disability award to US$7,465.00 based on POEA Memorandum Circular No.5, upgrading the basis for disability allowance to US$50,000.00. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition which states that the NLRC completely ignored a “Receipt and Release” purportedly signed by Homicillada receiving P15,750.00 from petitioners while the case was pending in POEA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to disability benefits
COURT RULING:
Being more inclined to believe the findings of the POEA, which are supported by substantial evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
The law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from demanding benefits to which he is entitled.
Requisites for a valid quitclaim: (a) There was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (b) The consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and, (c) The contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Compensability of an ailment does not depend on whether the injury or disease was pre-existing at the time of the employment but rather if the disease or injury is work-related or aggravated the worker’s condition.
