1/4/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[Respondent]
subsequently
underwent
Canal-Up
Mastoidectomy,
Tympanoplasty type I, Left last February 25, 2010 and after almost 3
months of recovery period, his right ear underwent the same procedure on
May 4, 2010.
For both surgeries, pre-operative and post-operative events were
unremarkable. He tolerated the said procedure and patient was discharged
improved. During his recovery period, he experienced blunted hearing acuity
and ear fullness and watery nasal discharge. These were all expected postsurgery and usually temporary. He was then prescribed by our ENT with
Clarithromycin 500mg/tab, OD, Levocetirizine dHC1 10mg/tab, OD and
Fluticasone furoate (Avamys) nasal spray 1 puff each nostril BID for 1
month.
After 5-7 weeks after each surgery, patient has noted improvement with his
hearing. Operative sites showed bilaterally, re-assessment of both ears
showed no active ear infections. Turbinates were not congested. Tympanic
membranes were also closed and free from any infections. Patient can carry
on a normal conversation. He was cleared by our ENT specialist to go back
to work.[10]
More than a year thereafter, or sometime in November 2011, respondent was able to
obtain re-employment also as an Able Seaman with a contract duration of eight months
albeit, from another manning agency and principal, Philippine Transmarine Carriers,
Inc. and Marin Shipmanagement Limited, respectively.[11]
On July 31, 2012, respondent consulted an independent doctor who diagnosed him to
be suffering from "Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss, AD, and Profound Mixed
Hearing Loss, AS."[12]
This prompted respondent to claim permanent and total disability benefits against
petitioners. Hence, a complaint before the Labor Arbiter was filed on August 13, 2012.
[13]
For their part, petitioners countered that respondent is not entitled to permanent and
total disability benefits because he was already declared fit to work on July 9, 2010.
Petitioners pointed out that the fact that respondent was able to subsequently secure
another deployment as an Able Seaman from another company belies his claims that
he is permanently and totally disabled.[14]
The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
Upholding the findings of the company-designated doctors that respondent is already fit
to work and considering the fact that respondent was subsequently re-employed, the
Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent is not entitled to permanent and total disability
benefits. It was, however, ruled that respondent is entitled to attorney's fees and
sickness allowance, which should be reckoned from the date of sign-off from the vessel
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65696
2/13