6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On October 8, 2014, or prior to the expiration of the 240-day period reckoned from his repatriation on May 1, 2014, petitioner claimed that he was verbally informed by the company-designated physician that it would be his last check-up session and that subsequent consultations would be for his own account.[35] Considering that petitioner's illnesses remained unresolved and he was still on catheters,[36] the latter was compelled to seek an independent physician of his choice, Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Tan), who, in a Medical Certificate[37] dated October 20, 2014, declared him to be permanently disabled, in view of his existing indwelling catheter that caused frequent urinary tract infection and rendered him incapable of performing his job effectively. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint[38] for total permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, transportation and medical expenses, damages and attorney's fees against Crewtech, Rizzo, and its President/Manager, respondent Angelita Ancheta (Ancheta) before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. (M)-10-13052-14. For their part, Crewtech, Rizzo, and Ancheta denied petitioner's claim for disability benefits, contending that the latter was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation when he failed to disclose his previous medical history of prostatitis and kidney stone treatment during his last PEME, and as such, was disqualified from any compensation and benefits under Section 20 (E)[39] of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract[40] (2010 POEA-SEC).[41] They likewise contended that petitioner's ailments, Cystitis with Cystolithiases and BPH, have no causal connection to his work and were declared by the company-designated physician to be not workrelated, hence, not compensable.[42] They added that petitioner's independent physician did not contradict the finding that his illnesses were not work-related, and that his failure to observe the procedure for the joint appointment of a third doctor under Section 20 (A) (3)[43] of the 2010 POEA-SEC was fatal to his cause.[44] They denied petitioner's claim for sickness allowance, in view of his concealment, and averred that they had shouldered all the necessary treatments, surgery, laboratory, hospital, professional fees and medicines.[45] They likewise denied the claim for moral and exemplary damages as petitioner was treated fairly despite the finding that his illnesses were not work-related, and attorney's fees for lack of basis.[46] Lastly, they prayed that Crewtech be dropped as party-respondent to the case and be substituted by Elburg.[47] The LA Ruling In a Decision[48] dated April 30, 2015, the LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, ruling that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that his illnesses were work-related. The LA pointed out that since petitioner had a history of prostatitis in 2011 and did not take regular medication for it, he merely suffered from a recurrence of a pre-existing illness. The LA added that there was no clear and convincing indication that petitioner's work as Chief Cook has aggravated his condition given that it was his duty and responsibility to prepare safe and quality meals to the crew and that he was charged with the planning and requisition of food and catering supplies.[49] Moreover, petitioner's non-disclosure of a previous illness during his last PEME legally barred him from availing of the disability benefits pursuant to Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEAelibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63721 3/13