6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly deny the accusation that the ship master had refused him treatment.[74] In fact, Philimare also failed to rebut Dorotea's claim that the physician asked him for P200,000.00 prior to rendering treatment.[75] The disregard shown by Philimare to Doroteo was uncontroverted. Understandably upset, he instead went to a different physician in St. Luke's Medical Center and underwent treatment there, which ultimately failed to save him from the ravages of cancer.[76] In sum, Philimare did not extend any help to its dying seaman both in the immediate time of need while he was still under its employ, and in the throes of his final moments. This is a clear case of gross negligence, tantamount to bad faith. On this basis, the CA awarded moral damages to Doroteo. From the appellate court's appreciation of the established facts, Philimare clearly violated the provisions of the Labor Code, as well as the civil code provisions on the exercise of rights in good faith with proper legal reasoning.[77] To this we strongly agree. Neglecting employee's immediate medical requirements has a legal consequence.[78] Hence the award of moral damages, as in the following case: We affirm the appellate court's finding that petitioners are guilty of negligence in failing to provide immediate medical attention to private respondent. It has been sufficiently established that, while the M/V T.A. VOYAGER was docked at the port of New Zealand, private respondent was taken ill, causing him to lose his memory and rendering him incapable of performing his work as radio officer of the vessel. The crew immediately notified the master of the vessel of private respondent's worsening condition. However, instead of disembarking private respondent so that he may receive immediate medical attention at a hospital in New Zealand or at a nearby port, the master of the vessel proceeded with the voyage, in total disregard of the urgency of private respondent's condition. Private respondent was kept on board without any medical attention whatsoever for the entire duration of the trip from New Zealand to the Philippines, a voyage of ten days. To make matters worse, when the vessel finally arrived in Manila, petitioners failed to directly disembark private respondent for immediate hospitalization. Private respondent was made to suffer a wait of several more hours until a vacant slot was available at the pier for the vessel to dock. It was only upon the insistence of private respondent's relatives that petitioners were compelled to disembark private respondent and finally commit him to a hospital. There is no doubt that the failure of petitioners to provide private respondent with the necessary medical care caused the rapid deterioration and inevitable worsening of the latter's condition, which eventually resulted in his sustaining a permanent disability.[79] Moreover, exemplary damages are also proper.[80] In the same case, we awarded exemplary damages to the employee whose treatment was delayed by the ship captain without a valid ground: Meanwhile, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, pursuant to Article 2229 of the Civil Code. They are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62954 8/13