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