Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. vs. NLRC, and Tuazon

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.

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, and Inductivo

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Inductivo
318 SCRA 623, GR No. 130772, November 19, 1999
FACTS:

Petitioner employed private respondent’s husband, Faustino Inductivo, as utilityman for MT Rowan, for a period of ten months. Faustino underwent pre-employment medical examination and his employer's doctors found him physically fit for work, so he boarded the vessel on May 13, 1993, Barely two months before the expiration of his employment contract, or on January 1994, he was discharged from the vessel, under a "mutual consent, on completion of 8 months and 5 days." On January 19, 1994, Faustino was hospitalized after complaining of occasional coughing and chest pains. After a series of transfers from one hospital to another, Faustino was brought to the Makati Medical Center where the doctor found that his disease was already in its advanced stage. Faustino succumbed to his illness on April 23, 1994 and the autopsy report showed as cause of death disseminated intravascular coagulations, septecalmia, pulmonary congestion and multiple intestinal obstruction secondary to multiple adhesions.

Before Faustino death, or sometime in February 1994, respondent Elizabeth Inductivo went to petitioners to claim the balance of her husband’s leave wages. Petitioners said, however, that her husband was not entitled to sickness benefits because he was not sick at the time he was "offsigned" from the vessel; he was "offsigned" from the vessel on "mutual consent" and not on medical grounds; and since he failed to advise or notify petitioners in writing within seventy-two hours of his alleged sickness, his right to claim sickness benefits was deemed forfeited. Respondent Elizabeth filed a compliant against petitioners for the payment of sickness and insurance benefits, which was amended to include death benefits after Faustino died. The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners to pay the complainant, for herself and in her capacity as guardian of her two minor children. On appeal, the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter, and the motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is entitled to death benefits

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, giving credence to the finding of the NLRC that the illness was contracted during the Faustino's employment on board MT Rowan.

The POEA standard employment contract is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must, therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor or for the benefit of the seamen and their dependents.

Medical opinions of an employer’s doctor which are palpably self-serving and biased in favor of the employer cannot prevail over the entries in the Death Certificate and Autopsy Report.

It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits provided therefore. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his death.

More Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC, and Homicillada

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.