5/19/2021

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 237130, July 01, 2020 ]
ADEX R. MACAHILAS, PETITIONER, VS. BSM CREW SERVICE
CENTRE PHILS., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CARANDANG, J.:
The instant petition[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision[2] dated
August 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146261, dismissing the
complaint for payment of permanent and total disability benefits filed by petitioner
Adex Macahilas (Macahilas) against respondents BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc.
(BSM) and its foreign employer Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (Deutschland)
GMBH & Co. KG, and Narcissus L. Duran.
Macahilas worked for BSM under several employment contracts. On August 30, 2013,
Macahilas commenced his 8-month contract[3] with BSM as Third Engineer on board
APL Canada. His employment was covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
called Verdi/ITF Berlin IMES IBI CBA.[4]
As third engineer, Macahilas worked inside the ship's engine room as he was
responsible for operating and maintaining the ship's engine and other mechanical
systems and equipment, such as the boilers, fuel, main and auxiliary engines,
condensate and feed systems. He worked in confined vessel spaces, and was exposed
to injurious and harmful chemicals, dust, fumes/emissions, and other irritant agents.
Macahilas claims that his work also entailed strenuous lifting, pushing, and moving of
equipment and materials on board the ship.[5]
On December 29, 2013, while on board APL Canada, Macahilas experienced abdominal
pain, vomiting, and chills. Oral medications given on board did not help improve his
conditions. As a result, Macahilas was referred for admission in a hospital in Mexico,
where he was diagnosed with Phase IV Appendicitis. Macahilas underwent
appendectomy, but his wound was infected.[6] On January 17, 2014, he was medically
repatriated to the Philippines for further treatment of his wound infection. On
examination, the company-designated physician opined that his appendicitis was not
work-related because "in most cases [said condition] results from blockage of the
appendix usually by a fecalith, causing inflammation x x x."[7] Despite said finding,
Macahilas was treated for the infection with weekly follow-ups. In April 2014, his wound
totally healed but after a CT-scan exam, Macahilas's incisional hernia increased in size.
In December 2014, Macahilas underwent a hernia repair with mesh and was later
discharged. He was advised to have follow-ups with the company-designated physician.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66559

1/10

Select target paragraph3