6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
involvement;" the recommendation was for him to undergo coronary artery bypass
graft surgery (CABG[12]).[13]
On July 6, 2009, respondent underwent percutaneous coronary intervention[14] or
angioplasty instead of the recommended bypass surgery. The angioplasty was a mere
outpatient procedure.[15] Respondent underwent angioplasty instead of bypass surgery
because he could not afford the latter procedure, as it was he who was paying for his
treatment.[16] Petitioners did not provide medical and financial assistance after
respondent's initial diagnosis.[17] It was respondent alone who chose the hospital and
procedure for the treatment of his condition, with full consideration of the cost and
expenses of treatment.[18]
In a July 6, 2009 Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Report[19] issued after
respondent's angioplasty, the attending physician recommended the administration of
dual antiplatelets[20] and that medical care or management of respondent's condition
should be "maximized."
On September 25, 2009, respondent sought the opinion of an independent physician,
Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo), who issued a Medical Certificate[21] declaring that
respondent is unfit to resume work as seaman in any capacity; that he requires
maintenance medication to control his hypertension to prevent cardiovascular
complications such as worsening coronary artery disease, stroke and renal
insufficiency; and that respondent is not expected to land gainful employment given his
medical background.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
Prior to Dr. Vicaldo's assessment, or on July 27, 2009, respondent filed a Complaint[22]
against Magsaysay, Princess Cruise, and their co-petitioner Eduardo U. Manese
(Manese) - Magsaysay Owner/President/General Manager - for recovery of permanent
total disability and sickness benefits, reimbursement of medical and other expenses,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, which was docketed in the NLRC,
National Capital Region, Quezon City as NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M)-07-10662-09.
In his Position Paper,[23] Reply,[24] and Rejoinder,[25] respondent claimed that
petitioners acted in bad faith in refusing to provide medical and financial assistance to
address his heart condition, which he claimed was contracted during his employment
with the latter; that he has been rendered and declared permanently and totally
disabled, which thus entitled him to the maximum corresponding benefits; that
petitioners unjustly refused to indemnity him, which further entitled him to actual,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees for being compelled to litigate; and
that in addition, he was entitled to indemnity under an International Transport
Federation Collective Bargaining Agreement (ITF-CBA). Thus, respondent prayed that
he be paid US$80,000.00 as permanent disability compensation; US$2,275.00 sickness
compensation; P463,240.31 as reimbursement for medical expenses incurred;
P16,700.00 as reimbursement for transportation expenses; P600,000.00 combined
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61296
2/20