7/7/2021

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 252914, November 09, 2020 ]
VIRGILIO S. SUELO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. MST MARINE SERVICES
(PHILS.), INC., THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., AND
ERNANDO A. RODIO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PEARLS-BERNABE, J .:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by petitioner Virgilio S.
Suelo, Jr. (petitioner) assailing the Resolutions[2] dated September 3, 2019 and March
6, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA ­G.R. SP No. 161699, which dismissed his
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rules) due to several
procedural infirmities.
The Facts
On May I 0, 2016, petitioner was hired by respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.),
Inc. (respondent) as Second Engineer for a six (6)-month contract on board the vessel
"Janesia Asphalt V," with a basic monthly package of $1,551.00 as salary, $1,155.00 as
overtime pay, and $466.00 vacation leave pay, among others. On May 28, 2016, he
boarded the vessel and commenced his duties as Second Engineer.[3]
On October 29, 2016, he was brought to Singapore General Hospital due to severe
headache, slurring of speech, neck pain, and a recent history of loss of consciousness.
Upon evaluation, he was diagnosed with uncontrolled hypertension. His X-ray results
revealed degenerative change at C5-6 and C6-7 levels. Subsequently, he was given
medications, declared unfit for all marine duties, and signed off in Singapore on
medical grounds. He arrived in the Philippines on November 4, 2016 and immediately
flew to his hometown in Iloilo.[4]
On November 7, 2016, he reported to respondent's branch office in Iloilo. He alleged
that respondent did not allow him to report to its Manila office and refused to refer him
to a company-designated physician. Instead, respondent allegedly asked him to seek
medical treatment subject to reimbursement. However, he averred that when he
submitted his request for reimbursement, respondent denied the same.[5] Accordingly,
he filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, damages, and
attorney's fees before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
For their part, respondent argued that it was petitioner who refused to undergo
treatment with the company-designated physician, thereby forfeiting his right to claim
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66765

1/6

Select target paragraph3