The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of strict compliance with the post-employment medical examination requirement for seafarers seeking disability benefits. The Court emphasized that failure to undergo examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of repatriation, without valid justification, forfeits the right to claim compensation. This ruling underscores the need for seafarers to adhere to procedural requirements to protect their claims, balancing their rights with the employer’s need for timely medical assessment.

Navigating the Seas of Compliance: When a Seafarer’s Health Claim Runs Aground

In Jose Aspiras Malicdem v. Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc., the Supreme Court grappled with the issue of a seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits, specifically addressing the mandatory post-employment medical examination requirement. The petitioner, Jose Aspiras Malicdem, sought disability benefits for hypertension and glaucoma, claiming they were work-related and aggravated by his employment conditions as a Chief Engineer. However, the respondents, Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc., Inter-Ocean Company Limited, and Ernesto T. Tuvida, contested the claims, arguing the conditions were not work-related and that Malicdem failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement. The core legal question revolved around whether Malicdem’s failure to undergo a timely post-employment medical examination with a company-designated physician forfeited his right to disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The facts of the case reveal that Malicdem was hired by Asia Bulk Transport Phils, Inc. (ABTPI) in behalf of its foreign principal, SKM Korea Co., Ltd., to work on board the vessel MV Yushio Princess II. Prior to his embarkation, a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) revealed that Malicdem had a history of high blood pressure and hypertension, but he was still declared fit to work. During his time on board, he experienced blurring vision and headaches, leading to his repatriation to Manila. Upon his return, he was referred to a company-designated hospital, where Dr. Susannah Ong-Salvador (Dr. Salvador) diagnosed him with glaucoma. The doctor also clarified that his glaucoma was not work-related.

Later, Malicdem signed another employment contract and worked on MV Nord Liberty. He claimed that his exposure to psychological stress, fatty foods, heat, and diesel fumes on board aggravated his conditions. After experiencing dizziness and blurring vision, he was repatriated again. Malicdem alleged that he requested a referral to a company-designated physician for a post-employment medical examination but received no assistance. He consulted a private doctor who assessed him as disabled for any work due to his conditions. Subsequently, he filed a complaint for disability benefits, arguing that his hypertension and glaucoma were work-related. However, the company-designated physician maintained that his glaucoma was not work-related.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Malicdem’s complaint, citing his failure to substantiate his claim that he suffered hypertension while on board MV Nord Liberty, and his failure to prove that his glaucoma was directly caused or aggravated by his employment. The LA also noted Malicdem’s non-compliance with the three-day mandatory reportorial requirement under the POEA-SEC. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA’s decision, stating that Malicdem failed to provide evidence of a reasonable connection between his work and his glaucoma, and that he did not meet the requirements for hypertension compensation under the POEA-SEC. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC’s decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion and emphasizing that Malicdem did not present the required documents for hypertension claims and failed to provide substantial evidence that his working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting glaucoma.

In resolving the issues, the Supreme Court focused on whether Malicdem was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized that for disability to be compensable under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the injury or illness must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. The Court also highlighted the mandatory requirement under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC, which requires the seafarer to submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from repatriation.

The Court ruled that Malicdem failed to comply with the three-day reporting requirement, thus forfeiting his right to claim disability benefits. This ruling aligns with established jurisprudence, which emphasizes that compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement is essential for a seafarer’s claim to prosper. The Court cited several cases, including Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v Esguerra, which explicitly states that failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement without justifiable cause results in forfeiture of the right to claim compensation and disability benefits.

The rationale behind the three-day mandatory requirement is that it allows the company-designated physician to determine if the illness was work-related soon after the seafarer’s repatriation, making it easier to ascertain the real cause of the illness. The Supreme Court acknowledged exceptions to the rule, such as when the seafarer is incapacitated or when the employer refuses to submit the seafarer to a medical examination. However, these exceptions were not applicable in Malicdem’s case.

Even if Malicdem had complied with the reporting requirement, the Court noted that his petition would still fail because he did not provide sufficient evidence that his illnesses were compensable. Both the NLRC and the CA found that Malicdem’s hypertension and glaucoma were not compensable under the POEA-SEC. The Court clarified that under the 2010 POEA-SEC, hypertension is no longer a listed occupational disease, making both of Malicdem’s claimed illnesses non-listed occupational diseases.

Despite the disputable presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC that illnesses not listed as occupational diseases are work-related, the Court emphasized that the seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. Malicdem failed to provide such evidence for both his hypertension and glaucoma. His claims that stress and sodium-rich food on board exacerbated his hypertension were deemed insufficient, and he did not present competent medical evidence to connect his work and his glaucoma. In contrast, the company-designated physician’s medical report indicated that Malicdem’s glaucoma was not work-related.

The Court also highlighted that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer’s illness for purposes of claiming disability benefits. The Court has consistently upheld the findings of company-designated physicians over those of private physicians because the former devote more time and attention to observing and treating the claimant’s condition. In Malicdem’s case, the company-designated physician had assessed his glaucoma soon after his first repatriation, while Malicdem sought advice from a private physician more than a year after his latest arrival in the country.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Malicdem’s contract with ABPTI had already expired when he was repatriated, which weakens his claim that his ailment was aggravated by his working conditions during his term of employment. The Supreme Court ultimately denied Malicdem’s petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the mandatory reporting requirement and the need for substantial evidence to establish the compensability of illnesses. While the Court acknowledged that the POEA-SEC should be liberally construed in favor of seafarers, it cannot sanction the award of benefits without evident proof of compensability and compliance with mandatory requirements.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a seafarer’s failure to comply with the mandatory three-day post-repatriation medical examination requirement under the POEA-SEC forfeits his right to claim disability benefits. The Court ultimately ruled that it does.
What is the three-day reporting requirement?	The POEA-SEC mandates that a seafarer seeking disability benefits must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of repatriation. Failure to comply, absent valid justification, results in forfeiture of benefits.
What constitutes a valid justification for not complying with the three-day rule?	Valid justifications include physical incapacitation preventing the seafarer from reporting or refusal by the employer to provide a medical examination. The seafarer must provide written notice to the agency within the same period if physically incapacitated.
What kind of evidence is needed to prove a non-listed illness is work-related?	The seafarer must present substantial evidence demonstrating a reasonable connection between the work conditions and the contraction or aggravation of the illness. Bare assertions are insufficient.
Why is the company-designated physician’s assessment given more weight?	Company-designated physicians are generally given more weight because they are entrusted with assessing the seafarer’s condition. They typically devote more time and attention to the case.
Does the disputable presumption of work-relatedness guarantee compensation?	No, the disputable presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA-SEC does not guarantee automatic compensation. The seafarer must still provide substantial evidence that their work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the illness.
What if the seafarer’s employment contract has already expired upon repatriation?	Repatriation after an expired contract weakens the seafarer’s claim that the ailment was aggravated by their working conditions during the employment term. It raises doubts about whether the illness existed during the contract.
What is the role of the POEA-SEC in disability claims?	The POEA-SEC provides the framework for determining the liabilities of employers when a seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during their contract. It sets the conditions and procedures for claiming compensation and benefits.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Malicdem v. Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc. serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of procedural compliance in seafarers’ disability claims. While the law aims to protect seafarers, it also requires them to fulfill specific obligations to ensure fairness and accuracy in assessing claims. Strict adherence to the POEA-SEC guidelines is essential for seafarers seeking to secure their rightful benefits.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jose Aspiras Malicdem v. Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 224753, June 19, 2019