5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On February 19, 2007, Dr. Ong-Salvador wrote respondents a reply to a medical query,
[12] stating that “patient’s condition is regarded as non-work related, as the disease
is mainly of a heredofamilial etiology that is enhanced by a number of modifiable and
non-modifiable risk factors. . . .”[13] Monana did not dispute this report.[14]
Nevertheless, respondents continued providing Monana with medical assistance.[15]
On March 3, 2007, Monana was referred to neurologist Dr. Generoso D. Licup, who
found that Monana “still experience[d] occasional heaviness and clumsiness of the right
upper and lower extremities especially during strenuous and prolonged activities.”[16]
On July 18, 2007, Monana was referred to cardiologist Dr. Glenn A. Mana-ay (Dr. Manaay), who also diagnosed him with S/P Stroke secondary to Acute Ischemic Infarct, Left
Periventicular Parietal Lobe and Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease.[17] Dr. Mana-ay
reported that Monana’s blood pressure was controlled, and he had minimal weakness
on the right side of the body.[18] Monana’s condition steadily improved.[19]
On August 23, 2007, Monana sought a second opinion with cardiologist Dr. Efren R.
Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo) from the Philippine Heart Center. [20] Dr. Vicaldo declared that
Monana’s illness was work-related/-aggravated, and that Monana was unfit to resume
work as a seafarer in any capacity.[21]
Consequently, Monana claimed disability and illness allowance. Respondents refused,
prompting Monana to file a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch.
The Labor Arbiter, in his decision[22] dated May 30, 2008, ruled in favor of Monana and
ordered respondents to pay US$60,000.00 or its peso equivalent as disability benefits:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent-entities to
pay complainant jointly and severally the sum of US$60,000.00 or its
Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment, representing his disability
benefits.
Further, respondents jointly and severally are hereby ordered to pay
complainant 10% of the total judgment award as and [sic] way of attorney’s
fees.
Other claims are hereby denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[23] (Emphasis in the original)
The National Labor Relations Commission, in its resolution[24] dated January 30, 2009,
vacated the Labor Arbiter’s decision and instead ordered respondents to grant financial
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809
2/17