6/7/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
areas.[9] On August 29, 2014, the NLRC reversed the LA's findings and dismissed
Lloyd's complaint. It ratiocinated that Lloyd failed to establish that he was repatriated
for medical reasons. Also, it held that the reportorial requirement applies to claims for
disability compensation. Lastly, there was no reason to relax the requirement absent
evidence that Lloyd was incapacitated to submit himself to post-employment medical
examination before the company-designated physician or that he had submitted a
written notice to that effect,[10] viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents' appeal is GRANTED and
the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated February 28, 2014 is VACATED AND SET
ASIDE. A new one is hereby entered DISMISSING complainant-appellant's
complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. Accordingly, his partial
appeal is DENIED for lack of merit
SO ORDERED.[11]
Unsuccessful at a reconsideration,[12] Lloyd elevated the case to the CA through a
petition for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 138222. On September 1, 2016, the
CA set aside the NLRC's Decision and reinstated the LA's award of total and permanent
disability benefits. The CA cited Baron, et al. v. EPE Transport, Inc., et al.[13] and
Barros v. NLRC[14] and ruled that the burden rests upon Maryville Manila and Maryville
Maritime to prove that Lloyd was not medically repatriated. It also cited Career
Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., et al. v. Serna[15] and held that Lloyd sought
medical examination but was refused, thus:
There is no dispute that the Petitioner was repatriated before the end of his
contract with the Private Respondent. The parties, however, cannot agree on
the reason for such repatriation. As there is no showing of a clear, valid,
and legal cause for the Petitioner's repatriation, the issue will,
therefore, be resolved in like manner as claims for illegal dismissal,
which means that the burden is on the employer to prove that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause.
xxxx
As for the post-employment medical examination requirement, both the
Petitioner and the Private Respondents failed to present supporting evidence
of their contrasting claims. On the part of the Petitioner, he failed to show
proof that he was refused medical examination while, on the part of the
Private Respondents, the latter failed to present proof that the Petitioner
made such a request. Pertinent on this score is the Supreme Court's
pronouncement in Career Philippines Shipmanagemeni, Inc., et al. v. Serna,
viz.:
xxx While Serna's verified claim with respect to his July 14, 1999
visit to the petitioner's office may be seen by some as a bare
allegation, we note that the petitioners' corresponding denial is
itself also a bare allegation that, worse, is unsupported by other
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66675
3/13