6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
was refused, and instead, his contract was extended for another month from December
12, 2010 to January 31, 2011. On February 2, 2011, the respondent arrived back in the
Philippines.[7]
It is after this point that the versions of facts of the petitioners and the respondent
diverge.
According to the petitioners, after the respondent's repatriation, the latter "never
voiced out any health concern nor did he report for a post-employment medical
examination."[8] The petitioners further alleged that they had no contact whatsoever
with the respondent until the time that they (petitioners) received the complaint filed
by the respondent on March 6, 2012. The petitioners pointed out that this complaint
was initiated more than one year after the respondent's disembarkation from "MT
HELLESPONT CREATION."[9]
On the other hand, the respondent asserted that upon his arrival in the Philippines, he
"immediately went to private respondent MANSHIP (herein petitioner) for postemployment medical examination, but private respondent MANSHIP failed to refer him
to the company-designated physician."[10] According to the respondent, petitioners'
refusal prompted him to consult with his personal physician, Dr. Achilles C. Esguerra,
who later on diagnosed him with congestive heart failure,[11] and declared him
physically unfit for sea service.[12]
According to the respondent, on February 15, 2011, less than two weeks after his
arrival in the Philippines, he underwent ECG, ED Echo, and ultrasound procedures in
Clinica Caritas. Few days thereafter, on February 26, 2011, he suddenly collapsed and
was rushed to the Medical City where he was confined for three days. By September
29, 2011, Dr. Esguerra diagnosed him of his illness. On February 2, 2012, he was once
more confined, this time in St. Luke's Medical Center for eight days, and was diagnosed
with "dilated cardiomyopathy (non-ischemic) S/P CVD Infarct (2010) and chronic atrial
fibrillation."[13]
On the basis of the foregoing, the respondent sought from the petitioners the payment
of disability benefits; medical, surgical, and hospitalization expenses; and sickness
allowance. The petitioners denied the claim.
Hence, on June 1, 2012, the respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint
against the petitioners.
The LA Ruling
After the submission of the pleadings by both parties, the LA ruled that the respondent
suffered from total and permanent disability. This is because "the proximity of the date
of repatriation and the time the complainant collapsed is too close that it leads to the
conclusion that complainant's ailment was work-aggravated during the term of his
contract."[14] The LA also ruled that the respondent was justified in not complying with
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63966
2/11