Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Tuazon
333 SCRA 236, GR No. 123619, June 8, 2000
FACTS:
On March 17, 1991, petitioner deployed respondent Benjamin T. Tuazon, (now deceased and represented by his 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 required 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 tests. In 1986, complainant 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 US$2,200 representing 120 days sickness benefits, and the amount of US$15,000.00 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
COURT RULING:
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 respondent 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.
