4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Thereafter, Nazal demanded permanent total disability compensation from the
petitioners, contending that his ailments developed during his employment with the
petitioners and while he was performing his duties. As his demand went unheeded, he
filed the present complaint.
The agency, for itself and for its principal, argued that Nazal’s claim is barred by laches
as it was filed at least two years and ten (10) months late; even if it were otherwise, it
still cannot prosper because of Nazal’s failure to submit himself to a post-employment
medical examination by a company- designated physician within three working days
upon his disembarkation, as mandated by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This resulted, it added, in
the forfeiture of his right to claim disability benefits.
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
In his decision[6] dated May 25, 2005, Labor Arbiter (LA) Eduardo J. Carpio dismissed
the complaint, principally on the ground that Nazal failed to comply with the mandatory
reporting requirement under his standard employment contract. LA Carpio gave no
credence to Nazal’s claim that he reported to Colorado, as there was no proof
presented in this respect. LA Carpio pointed out that while Nazal might have been
complaining about his health condition while on board the vessel, there was no
evidence showing that he reported his ailments to the vessel’s authorities.
Nazal appealed from LA Carpio’s decision. On September 20, 2005, the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a decision[7] in Nazal’s favor. It set aside LA
Carpio’s ruling and awarded Nazal US$10,075.00 as partial disability benefit, plus 5%
attorney’s fees. The NLRC declared that contrary to LA Carpio’s conclusion, Nazal
presented substantial proof that his ailments had been contracted during his
employment with the petitioners. The NLRC relied on Dr. Vicaldo’s disability rating of
Grade X (20.15%) pursuant to the POEA-SEC.
Both parties moved for partial reconsideration. For his part, Nazal pleaded with the
NLRC that he be granted permanent total disability benefits as he would not be able to
resume his employment as a seaman anymore. On the other hand, the agency insisted
that laches barred Nazal’s claim, but in any event, he failed to comply with the
mandatory post-employment reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC.[8] Further, it
stressed that a higher degree of proof should have been required by the NLRC because
of the badges of suspicion/fraud apparent in the case. It explained in this regard that
Nazal submitted proof that he had taken another overseas employment after he
disembarked from the vessel M/V Rover.
By a resolution dated November 30, 2005,[9] the NLRC denied both motions, stressing
that they were based on the same arguments presented to the LA. The agency filed an
urgent motion for reconsideration on grounds of newly-discovered evidence and
pending motions/incidents. It argued that the new evidence showed that Nazal had
entered into another overseas contract after his stint with the petitioners for which
reason, his disability could not have been due to his work on board the vessel M/V
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55870
2/9