6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners also referred respondent to the American Outpatient Clinic for comanagement. He was likewise diagnosed with recurrent acute psychotic disorder, per the medical report[7] dated February 2, 2001 of Dr. Leticia C. Abesamis. Respondent’s psychological evaluation[8] on March 1, 2001 showed that respondent has an average intellectual level and no significant manifestation of personality and mental disturbances. In her letter[9] dated February 11, 2002, Psychometrician Raquel Arceta reported to Dr. Abesamis that respondent is still fit to work abroad at the time of evaluation. Meantime, in another medical report[10] dated February 8, 2002, Dr. Abesamis stated that respondent can still go back to sea duty but recurrence of the same psychotic breakdown is possible. According to Dr. Abesamis, respondent denied that he had a psychotic breakdown in 1996. Respondent sued the petitioners for disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. He claimed that while he was told that he is already fit to work as seaman, the doctor refused to issue a medical certificate on the ground that he has yet to fully recover from his illness. When he sought re-employment, petitioners rejected him because of his illness. His claim for disability benefits under the CBA was also denied. Then, petitioners advised him to claim disability benefits from the Social Security System (SSS) and gave him the SSS Forms/Medical Certificates[11] duly signed by Dr. Abesamis. For their part, petitioners argued that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits because he concealed his pre-existing psychotic illness. According to them, respondent concealed that he was repatriated in 1996 and 1997 for psychotic episodes. They claimed that respondent is already fit to work, citing the result of his psychological examination after his repatriation. They also claimed that the CBA is not applicable because it covers disability caused by accident and that respondent is not entitled to damages and attorney’s fees because they have showed good faith in dealing with him. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent and ordered petitioners to pay him disability benefits, sickness allowance and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter noted that respondent suffered a psychotic disorder during the term of his employment contract. Since his illness is recurrent, his ability to work has been impaired for life and he is no longer fit to work. The Labor Arbiter also noted that Dr. Abesamis even referred respondent to the SSS to claim his disability benefits. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling but ordered petitioners to pay respondent sickness allowance. It ruled that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits since he concealed his psychotic features in his application form when he sought employment with petitioners. It noted Dr. Constantine D. Della’s certification dated April 29, 1997 that respondent’s history revealed psychotic features in the past. Respondent also admitted to Dr. Reyes that he is suffering from a pre-existing illness and that he was sent home in 1996 after experiencing a similar psychotic breakdown. The NLRC said that the POEA-SEC disqualifies a seaman from any compensation and benefit if he conceals a past medical condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58968 2/9