6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Petitioner demanded compensation by way of disability benefits and medical expenses
from respondents, but the latter refused to pay.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On April 82011, petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits, medical expenses,
allowances, damages, and attorney's fees against respondents before the Labor Arbiter,
which was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. (M) 04-05732-11.
On August 31, 2011, Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera issued his Decision[7] in the case,
which decreed as follows:
There are formidable grounds why said complainant's claims must fail.
First, the complainant was repatriated not on medical grounds but on
account of the completion of his employment contract. x x x
Second, it cannot be denied that before complainant was deployed and
joined his vessel on October 17, 2008, he was already afflicted with
hypertension and diabetes mellitus as found during his pre-employment
medical examination. As a matter of fact, complainant admitted that upon
joining the vessel in France, he had with him various maintenance drugs for
his hypertension and diabetes mellitus. This necessarily indicates that
complainant's medical condition of hypertension and diabetes mellitus were
pre-existing and contracted during his employment on board the vessel from
October 17, 2008 until he finished his contract and eventually repatriated on
December 19, 2009. Moreover, there is no record that while on board the
vessel for the entire period of his employment, he was treated on board the
vessel and/or confined in a clinic or hospital in the foreign ports. In short,
there is no proof of any aggravation of his ailments.
Third, the complainant was repatriated not on medical grounds but precisely
on account of completion of his employment contract. Hence, there was no
reason for him to submit to post-employment medical examination within
three (3) days from date of his arrival on December 19, 2009. In fact, there
is no record that complainant had reported to the respondents Crossworld
for the mandatory post-employment medical examination preparatory to
further treatment and management of his ailments as contemplated under
Section 20 [B] paragraph 3 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. If
there was any medical examination conducted thereafter, it was not for
purposes of the complainant’s claim for disability benefit and medical
expenses, but precisely for purposes of his aborted next employment
contract sometime in March 2010.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is
hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62635
2/14