1/5/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The doctors' initial finding was "(t)o Consider Cardiac (Dysrythmia); To Consider
Coronary Artery Disease; Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease." On October 24, 2013,
the doctors issued a Grade 12 disability rating.[8]
Dissatisfied, he sought the opinion of a private doctor, Dr. Antonio C. Pascual of the
Philippine Heart Center on April 1, 2014. Dr. Pascual found him to be suffering from
Stage 2 hypertension and coronary artery disease and advised him to continue with his
medication and treatment. Dr. Pascual, thus, opined that petitioner was unfit for sea
duties.[9]
Petitioner averred that despite this finding, private respondents refused to award him
total and permanent disability benefits. Hence, he got constrained to file the complaint
below for permanent total disability benefits.[10]
Private respondents, on the other hand, argued that petitioner willfully concealed the
fact that he was previously diagnosed with coronary artery disease and had undergone
coronary angiogram. Assuming that petitioner was entitled to disability benefits, he was
only entitled to Grade 12 disability benefits, as opined by the company-designated
doctors.[11]
The Labor Arbiter's Ruling
By Decision dated October 1, 2014,[12] Labor Arbiter Eric V. Chuanico granted
petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits, viz.:
WHEREFORE, (p)remises (c)onsidered, this Office finds the Complainant to
be (t)otally and (p)ermanently (d)isabled. Respondents, jointly and severally
are held liable to the Complainant the amount of US$155,257.00 or its
Philippine Peso (e)quivalent at the time of payment as total and permanent
disability benefit plus (d)amages of Php100,000.00 as well as to pay
(attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award.
Complainant's other claims are denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Labor Arbiter Chuanico found private respondents' charge of concealment of material
fact to be unsubstantiated. He held that the company-designated doctors should have
required petitioner to present his previous diagnoses to ascertain all available
information surrounding his illness. Private respondents' failure to require petitioner to
present his previous medical records led to no other conclusion but that the statements
made in the company-designated doctors' sworn affidavit were "nothing more than selfserving allegations bereft of any credence." As such, he cannot consider this allegation
relevant, nay, applicable to the charge of material concealment against petitioner. Too,
sustaining the allegation would violate the principle of privileged communication,
hence, inadmissible in evidence.
Records showed that petitioner was asymptomatic when he boarded the vessel. He was
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965
2/19