6/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
agreement, if any, and the employment agreement between the seafarer and the
employer are pertinent. Section 20, paragraph E of the POEA-SEC clearly provides that
"[a] seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the PreEmployment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall
be disqualified from any compensation and benefits, x x x"
The rule seeks to penalize seafarers who conceal information to pass the preemployment medical examination. It even makes such concealment a just cause for
termination. Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, there is a"'pre-existing illness or condition" if
prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following is present: (a) the
advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness or
condition; or (b) the seafarer has been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or
condition but failed to disclose it during the pre-employment medical examination, and
such cannot be diagnosed during such examination.[16]
Here, Utanes' September 18, 2014 PEME indicated that he was not suffering from any
medical condition likely to be aggravated by service at sea or which may render him
unfit for sea service. His medical history likewise did not show that he had heart
disease/vascular/chest pain, high blood pressure, or that he underwent treatment for
any ailment and was taking any medication. Notably, he signed the PEME
acknowledging that he had read and understood and was informed of the contents of
the medical certificate. On the other hand, the company-designated doctor's medical
report, dated September 17, 2015, stated that Utanes disclosed that he has a history of
coronary artery disease for which he underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of
the left anterior descending artery in 2009. Evidently, Utanes obscured his pre-existing
cardiac ailment. This concealment disqualifies him from disability benefits
notwithstanding the medical attention extended by the company-appointed physicians
upon his repatriation.
It is immaterial that Utanes' misrepresentation was discovered during the course of his
treatment with the company-appointed doctors. That medical attention was extended
by the company-appointed physicians cannot cancel out his deception. In Manansala v.
Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., et al.}1 the seafarer's concealment was revealed beyond
the 120-day treatment period, after the issuance of a final assessment by the
company-designated physicians, and even after a claim for benefits was filed.
Nonetheless, the Court declared that the seafarer is not entitled to disability benefits
because of concealment. Also, in Status Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Sps. Delalamon
and Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp., et al.,[19]the Court ruled against the
seafarers, whose concealment were found out while being treated by company doctors.
More so, in Philman Marine Agency, Inc., et al. v. Cabanban,[20] the Court did not
award disability benefits to a seaman whose concealment was discovered as early as
his examination at the port of his assignment and prior to repatriation.
Time and again, it has been ruled that a PEME is generally not exploratory in nature,
nor is it a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical
condition.[21] It does not reveal the real state of health of an applicant, and does not
allow the employer to discover any and all preexisting medical condition with which the
seafarer is suffering and for which he may be taking medication.[22] The PEME is
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66745
3/9