11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 225847, July 03, 2019 ] DANILO L. PACIO, PETITIONER, V. DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED, AND/OR MANOLO T. GACUTAN, RESPONDENTS. DECISION A. REYES, JR., J.: Challenged before this Court via this Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision[2] dated January 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, and its Resolution[3] dated July 10, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No. 138514, which reversed the Decision[4] dated September 30, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC NO. 07-000557-14-OFW. The Antecedent Facts The facts are as follows: On July 4, 2012, respondent Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, for and in behalf of its principal, Dohle (IOM) Limited (respondents), hired Danilo L. Pacio (petitioner) to work as an Able Seaman in vessel MV Lady Elisabeth.[5] On June 21, 2012, the petitioner underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) at the Angelus Medical Clinic in Makati City. The medical certificate issued subsequent and as a result of the PEME reflected that the petitioner had disclosed that he had been suffering from hypertension since 2011.[6] Despite this revelation, he was certified fit for sea duty, though he was made to sign an undertaking where he acknowledged that he was given appropriate advice and medication for his pre-existing hypertension consisting of 270 capsules of amlodipine (Dailyvasc) 5 milligrams to be taken once a day for nine months. Aside from the acknowledgment, the petitioner was also asked to give the following declarations: (1) That he shall religiously take his medications as advised and diligently follow the doctor's advice; failure to do so will warrant the termination of his contract subject to the discretion of the agency/principal/employer; and (2) that in the event of a disabling sickness resulting from his hypertension, said ailment shall be deemed preexisting and non-compensable; consequently, no claim can be made against the company/employer. [7] On July 10, 2012, the petitioner departed from the Philippines and commenced employment. Five months later, on December 10, 2012, the petitioner complained of high blood pressure and dizziness, prompting his referral to a medical facility in https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 1/15

Select target paragraph3