6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
surgery on February 28, 2006, March 2, 2006 and March 4, 2006.
On March 9, 2006, respondent was declared fit for travel and was subsequently
repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon arrival in Manila, respondent went to the
Metropolitan Hospital but could not get immediate treatment. On March 19, 2006, he
experienced severe pain in his left eye so he insisted that he be admitted to the
hospital. Respondent underwent another series of laser surgery on March 22 and 25,
April 6, 18, and 25, 2006.
On August 11, 2006, Dr. Antonio Say declared respondent’s left eye to be legally blind
with poor possibility of recovery. Relevant portions of the medical certificate read:
A.
B.
Left eye is legally blind
Partial permanent disability
Partial because the visual activity of the right eye is 20/20.
It is permanent because the poor visual activity of the left eye, hand
movement, has poor prognosis for visual recovery.[7]
The petitioners denied his claim for permanent total disability and only rated his
incapacity as Grade 7. Respondent stressed that, under their Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), he should be considered legally blind meriting entitlement to
permanent total disability benefits in the sum of US$105,000.00 for being unable to
perform his job for more than 120 days from his repatriation.
Thus, on August 29, 2006, respondent filed a complaint against Fil-Star, Capt. Victorio
S. Migallos and Grandslam for disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees.
The petitioners averred that after almost a month aboard the vessel, respondent
complained of a sudden blurring of his left eye. They referred him to the Honmoku
Hospital where a Dr. Yasuhiko Tomita diagnosed him with Central Retinal Vein
Occlusion, left eye and Neo-Vascular Glaucoma, left eye, suspicion. After his
repatriation, they immediately referred him to the Metropolitan Medical Center where
he was treated and underwent a series of Panretinal Photocoagulation Session to
prevent further neovascular formation. They shouldered the expenses for all these
procedures. They, however, argued that respondent was not qualified for disability
benefits, damages and attorney’s fees because his illness was not an occupational
disease or work-related.
On May 21, 2007, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. (the LA) ruled in favor of
respondent.[8] The decretal portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents Filstar Maritime Corporation
and Grandslam Enterprise Corp. are jointly and severally liable to pay
complainant full total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of
US$105,000.00 or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency at the time of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28554
2/11