4/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Upon arrival in Manila, petitioner was referred to a company-designated physician at
the Ship to Shore Medical Assist and his condition was confirmed.[13] He was admitted
at Medical City where he was given intravenous antibiotics and subjected to visual
acuity testing, orbital CT scan and B scan ultrasound, and other laboratory
examinations to monitor his eye ailment.[14] He was found to have "Idiopathic Orbital
Inflammatory Disease, Left Eye; Retinal Detachment, Left Eye; Panuveitis, Left Eye;
Dacryoadenitis, Left Eye," and thereafter, referred to the Marine Medical Services for
further evaluation and treatment.[15]
In a Medical Report[16] dated November 3, 2015, the company designated physician
explicated that petitioner's eye condition may have been triggered by his diabetes
mellitus which, in addition to lack of sleep or inadequate rest, impaired his immune
system, thus, making his body susceptible to infections. Hence, it was not workrelated. Moreover, petitioner's visual prognosis and recovery were found to be poor due
to the permanent loss of vision in one eye despite medications, and as such, he was
declared to be unfit for further sea duties.[17] He was also advised to wear
polycarbonate glasses to avoid further infection and was recommended to be fitted with
scleral shell prosthesis to support his left eye, which, however was temporarily
deferred. For this reason, the company-designated physician declared petitioner to
have already reached his maximum medical improvement and suggested a disability
rating of Grade 7 or total loss of vision in one eye.[18] Notwithstanding, petitioner
returned for re-evaluation on November 24 and 25, 2015, wherein no noticeable
changes in his condition have been observed.[19]
Considering that there was permanent loss of vision in his left eye resulting in his
unfitness to work as declared by his attending specialist,[20] and since he was no
longer advised by TSPI to return for further consultations in view of the company's
alleged policy on a 130-day limit liability only,[21] petitioner demanded[22] from TSPI
the payment of disability benefits pursuant to the CBA, which the latter refused. This
prompted petitioner to raise his grievance before the Philippine Seafarers' Union, which
likewise resulted in a deadlock.[23] Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for
disability benefits against TSPI, its President Alex N. Verchez (Verchez), and its foreign
principal, TSL, with the NCMB, DOLE, docketed as MVA-028-RCMB-NCR-160-12-082016.[24]
In its defense, TSPI asserted that petitioner did not suffer from a work-related illness,
claiming that his eye condition was highly attributed to his pre-existing diabetes
mellitus and that it was also aggravated by his own failure to take his prescribed
medications.[25] It denied that petitioner's illness was brought about by the working
conditions on board the vessel, contending that the ship was seaworthy at all times and
conducive to work, and that petitioner was well aware of the safety items installed in
his work area.[26] It also argued that petitioner breached his duties under the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC)
when he abandoned his treatment by not showing up for his scheduled re-evaluation on
December 15, 2015 and effectively preventing the company-designated physician from
arriving at a proper disability grading as required by law. Lastly, it denied the other
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66115
2/12