STATUS MARITIME v. DOCTOLERO

STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION and ADMIBROS SHIP MANAGEMENT Co. LTD., Petitioners VS. RODRIGO C. DOCTOLERO, Respondent

G.R. No. 198968

January 18, 2017

FACTS:

          On July 28, 2006, Status Maritime hired Doctolero as Chief Officer on board the vessel M/V Dimitris Manios II for a period of nine months with basic salary of US $1,250.00. Doctolero declared fit to work by (PEME) Pre-Employment Medical Examination prior to his deployment.

         On October 28, 2006, while Doctolero was on board, he experienced chest and abdominal pains. He was brought to a medical clinic in Vera Cruz, Mexico and no clear diagnosis was made then he resumed work on board the vessel. However, in the evening of the same day he complained again of abdominal pain, which he was brought to Clinic San Luis in Mexico, and he was diagnosed from “Esophago-Gastritis-Duodenitis”. Based on the assessment of the attending physician, Dr, Jorge Hernandez Bustor recommended for his repatriation.

         Moreover, on October 29, 2006, the respondent experienced difficulty of breathing while waiting for his return flight. He informed the ship’s agent of his condition and requested for assistance but to no avail. Thus, he himself went to the Hospitales Nacionales where he was admitted. He paid the hospital bills amounting to MXN $ 7,032.17 on his own. After his discharge, he sought assistance from the Philippine Embassy for his repatriation to the Philippines.

         On November 16, 2006, the company designated physician evaluated Doctolero’s condition and found normal diagnostic tests.

         On January 22, 2007, Doctolero filed a complaint in the (NLRC) National Labor Relation Commission demanding the petitioner for payment of total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of hospital expenses, sick wage allowance, moral and exemplary damages and legal interest on his claims, on account of illness suffered while working on board.

         The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and the initial diagnosis of gastro-duodenitis was not listed as an occupational illness in the POEA-SEC and no evidence that shows such illness is aggravated by the working conditions on board of the vessel.

         On appeal, the NLRC found no basis for award of sickness allowance and disability pay. But the petitioner are ordered to reimburse the respondent’s cost of his medical treatment.

        The respondent assailed the decision of the NLRC in the Court of Appeals, and ordered the petitioner to pay the permanent and total disability benefits, moral exemplary damages, reimbursement of the hospital expenses in Mexico City, legal interest on the monetary awards, sick wage allowance and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

         Whether or not Doctolero is entitled to claim the permanent and total disability benefits from the petitioner.

HELD:

         No. Since permanent and total disability as defined in Article 198 (c) (1) of the Labor Code, to wit, (c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent; (1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days except as otherwise provided for in the Rules.

        In order for a seafarer claim for total and permanent disability benefits to prosper, any of the following conditions shall be present:

1. The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days.
2. 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company designated physician.
3. The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240 days period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under section 20-B (3) of the POEA-SEC are a contrary opinion.
4. The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well.
5. The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on disability grading.
6. The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B (3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work.
7. The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits.
8. The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods.

        The Supreme Court ruled the reversal and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals awarding permanent disability benefits to the respondent and reinstate the decision of NLRC and order the respondent to pay the costs of suit.