1/4/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
on April 21, 2010, long after Dr. Vicaldo pronounced him "unfit to resume sea duties in
any capacity" on December 17, 2009.[18] Furthermore, if it were true that petitioner
had already become fit to work, then why was he not re-engaged by respondents?[19]
The LA also ruled that petitioner's pre-existing hypertension does not disqualify him
from claiming disability benefits. Respondents were estopped from denying that in all of
petitioner's six previous contracts with them, including the last one, the company
doctors always declared him fit to work after his PEME. Finally, respondents' defense
that petitioner absconded from his checkup does not avail since respondents could have
easily issued the result to petitioner and told him to report for duty.[20]
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA through
its February 8, 2011 Decision.[21] It held that the medical examination of respondents'
accredited doctors, Dr. Gonzales and Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa D. Javier, the internistcardiologist, was more extensive than the examination made by Dr. Vicaldo on
petitioner. The latter's findings were not supported by laboratory results or diagnostic
examinations. No proof was presented to show that petitioner has a cardiovascular
disease that was acquired during the term of his employment.[22] Moreover, the
doctors on both sides of the case had the same medical findings as regards petitioner's
hypertension. Under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, hypertension is
compensable if it causes impairment of functions of body organs like kidneys, heart,
eyes and brain, resulting to permanent disability as substantiated by certain
documents. However, petitioner's ECG tracing revealed no significant findings. His
coronary angiogram was also negative for any vessel abnormalities.[23] Finally, the
NLRC held that petitioner failed to observe the third doctor referral rule under the 2000
POEA-SEC. Consequently, his claim for disability compensation must be denied.[24]
Acting on petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself and
reinstated the ruling of the LA. In its June 24, 2011 Resolution,[25] it held that the
2000 POEA-SEC does not require the parties to at all times assign a third doctor to
assess the seafarer's disability. Hence, a seafarer is not precluded from filing a
complaint before the NLRC even if the parties failed to secure the opinion of the third
doctor. More, the record is bereft of showing that petitioner's health condition was
restored to its status quo so as to enable him to return to his former work as a fitter.
The fact that petitioner did not need to undergo any surgical procedure or intervention
does not conclusively show that he is already fit to work.[26] The NLRC held that at the
time petitioner filed the case on January 14, 2010, five months after his repatriation,
he is still unable to return to his work as a fitter for respondents. His inability to
perform his customary work for more than 120 days constitutes total and permanent
disability.[27]
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it through its
Resolution[28] dated October 24, 2011.
Undaunted, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA),
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 122984. In its assailed Decision[29] dated October 2, 2013,
the CA set aside the NLRC Resolution for having been issued with grave abuse of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65565
3/10