Esguerra filed against CSMSI, its president, Benedicto C. Morcilla (Morcilla), and CMEGT, the complaint for
medical reimbursement, sickness allowance, permanent disability benefits, damages and attorney's fees
which was docketed as NLRC-OFW Case No. (M) 03-07-1784-00 before the arbitral level of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).[10] Subsequent to the filing of said complaint, Dr. Vicaldo issued a
medical certificate dated 18 July 2003, diagnosing Esguerra to be afflicted with "Coronary Artery Disease,
Stable angina pectoris" and declaring him unfit for work, with an "Impediment Grade VII (41.8%)."[11]
On 29 July 2003, Dr. Saguin also issued a medical certification stating that, as a consequence of his
"moderate rigidity with 2/3 loss of motion and loss of lifting power of the trunk," Esguerra was then "unfit
to work" with an Impediment Grade VIII.[12]
In support of his complaint, Esguerra alleged, among other, matters, that he was repatriated for medical
reasons on account of his work-related/aggravated ailment; that despite being apprised of his intention to
submit himself for medical examination, CSMSI failed to refer him to a company-designated physician,
and insisted that he was fit for work; and, that left with no choice but to seek medical attention on his
own at the PGH, PHC and POH, he was constrained to file his complaint for disability benefits, sickness
allowance, damages and attorney's fees.[13] In refutation, CSMSI, Morcilla and CMEGT averred that the
tests administered on Esguerra at the Jebel Ali Medical Centre revealed that he was in good health; and,
that disregarding the finding that he continued to be fit for work, Esguerra insisted on his repatriation and
filed his complaint without submitting himself to a post-employment medical examination within three (3)
working days upon his return.[14] Finding in favor CSMSI, Morcilla and CMEGT, Labor Arbiter Florentino R.
Darlucio went on to render the 29 January 2004 Decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that
Esguerra failed to prove his disability and to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by
a company-designated physician, pursuant to Section 20-B of the POEA SEC.[15]
With the affirmance of the Labor Arbiter's decision in the 30 June 2003 Resolution issued by the NLRC's
First Division in NLRC NCR CA No. 039292-04,[16] Esguerra filed the petition for certiorari docketed before
the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 90298. On 29 August 2008, the CA's Seventh Division rendered the herein
assailed decision reversing the NLRC's 30 June 2003 resolution, upon the following findings and
conclusions, viz.: (a) the medical certifications issued by Drs. Vicaldo and Saguin indicate that respondent
is entitled to temporary disability benefits corresponding to Impediment Grade VII (41.8%) which was
assessed as a consequence of the illness he suffered during the period of his employment; (b) the postemployment medical examination by a company-designated physician under POEA Memorandum Circular
No. 055-96 (Revised Standard Employment Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels) is not absolute and admits of exceptions; (c) petitioner's failure
to refer him to a company-designated physician justified respondent's resort to the physicians who
declared him "unfit for work" and assessed his Impediment Grade as aforesaid; and, (d) respondent is
entitled to a sickness allowance equivalent to four months' salary.[17]
CSMSI's motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision was denied for lack of merit in the CA's
second assailed Resolution dated 11 November 2008,[18] hence, this petition.
The Issues
CSMSI seeks the reversal of the CA's assailed resolutions on the following grounds, to wit:
1. The ruling of the Court of the Court of Appeals reversing and setting aside the
findings of fact and conclusions of law of Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio,
which was affirmed in toto by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
First Division, is contrary to the evidence on record and runs afoul with
prevailing jurisprudence.
2. The Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence and applied the POEA
Standard Employment Contract of 1996 instead of the Revised Terms and
Conditions for Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going vessels, which is part and parcel
of the Contract of Employment entered into between Esguerra and the petitioner
on May 9, 2003.[19]
The Court's Ruling