6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
designated physician upon repatriation, resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim for
sickness allowance. Respondent company further contended that petitioner was not
deployed by respondent company when he applied again because he failed to pass his
PEME due to the findings of the company-designated physician that he was suffering
from hypertension. Furthermore, respondent company claimed that Dr. Casison
executed an affidavit stating that he does not remember having issued any prescription
to petitioner on July 9, 2012 and that he had only seen him once on March 1, 2013
when he issued the Medical Certificate to him after having reviewed the latter's 2-D
Echo Report.
The Labor Arbiter, in her Decision dated March 31, 2014, rendered a Decision in favor
of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents INTERORIENT MARITIME
ENTERPRISES, INC., INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISE-LIBERIA for
DROMON E.N.E. and JASMIN P. ARBOLEDA are ordered to pay jointly and
severally complainant Alfredo M. Magat, disability benefits of US$60,000.00
and ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees, in Philippine Peso at the
time of the payment. All other claims are denied.
SO ORDERED.[5]
According to the Labor Arbiter, petitioner's job as able bodied seaman had contributed
even in a small degree to the development of his cardiovascular disease. It was also
ruled that the fact that petitioner signed off from MT North Star due to "completion of
contract" does not bar recovery of his disability claims considering that he aptly
established reasonable causation of his cardiovascular disease and his work as able
bodied seaman. The respondent, therefore, elevated the case to the NLRC.
The NLRC, in its Decision dated August 14, 2014, affirmed the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The
assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The Commission held that there is substantial basis to conclude that petitioner's heart
disease is work-related. It also ruled that petitioner's heart disease could not have
developed during that short period between his repatriation and medical examination,
hence, petitioner acquired or developed his illness during the term of his contract.
Respondents' motion for reconsideration having been denied, they filed a petition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA and in its Decision dated October 25, 2016,
the latter granted the petition and reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC,
thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
August 14, 2014 and Resolution dated September 30, 2014 of the public
respondent in NLRC LAC No. (OFW M) 06-000477-14, NLRC NCR Case No.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64110
3/11