Dizon v. NAESS Shipping June 2016 Case Digest

June 1, 2016 – Disability Benefits
G.R. No. 201834
ANDRES L. DIZON, petitioner,

vs.
NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. and DOLE UK (Ltd.), respondent,
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Facts: Since 1976, respondents Naess Shipping Phils., Inc. and DOLE UK hired petitioner Andres L. Dizon as cook
for its various vessels until the termination of his contract in 2007. Dizon disembarked after completing his contract
on February 14, 2007. He then went on a vacation, and was called for another employment contract after a month.
When he underwent pre-employment medical examination in March 2007, he was declared unfit for sea duties due
to uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease as certified by the doctors of the Marine Medical and
Laboratory Clinic. He then went to PMP Diagnostic Center, Inc. for diagnostic tests. It was also recommended that
he undergo Angioplasty. His treadmill stress test showed that he had Abnormal Stress Echocardiography.
Unconvinced with the doctor's declaration of unfitness, Dizon went to the Seamen's Hospital and submitted himself
for another examination. The result indicated that he was fit for sea duty. He returned to MMLC and requested for a
re-examination, but the same was denied.
On January 6, 2009, Dizon filed a complaint against respondents for payment of total and permanent disability
benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical, hospital and transportation expenses, moral damages,
attorney's fees and interest before the Labor Arbiter.
Claiming that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefit, Dizon alleged that he incurred his illness while on
board the respondents' vessel. He claimed that his working conditions on board were characterized by stress, heavy
work load, and over fatigue. He averred that Dr. Marie T. Magno re-evaluated his actual medical condition on
February 16, 2009 and declared him unfit to resume his work as seafarer since his heart condition is unable to
tolerate moderate to severe exertions.
Dizon asserted that he disclosed his hypertension prior to his last contract in 2006, but was certified fit for duty for
the nine-month employment contract.
For their part, respondents disavowed liability for Dizon's illness maintaining that he finished and completed his
contract on board their vessel Dole Colombia without any incident, and that his sickness was not work-related. 21
They rejected the redeployment of Dizon since he was declared unfit for sea duty in his pre-employment medical
examination. Respondents claimed that they were only exercising their freedom to choose which employees to hire.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Dizon is entitled to full disability benefits. The LA held that it can be logically concluded
that Dizon's illness arose during the period of his employment since less than a month transpired between his
repatriation and the pre-employment medical examination. This disposition finds support from the undisputed fact
that Dizon had been continuously employed by respondents for 30 years while performing similar duties under the
same working conditions. The LA found that the respondents failed to adduce evidence to overcome the
presumption of compensability in favor of the seafarer.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of LA for finding that Dizon did not comply with the
mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days upon arrival. The NLRC held that Dizon
failed to prove through substantial evidence that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting coronary
artery disease.
The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not Dizon is entitled to the Disability Benefit.

Held: No.
Ratio: Settled is the rule that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed,
not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract.
Section 20 (B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment
Contract (POEA-SEC). The law specifically declares that failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement
shall result in the seafarer's forfeiture of his right to claim benefits thereunder.
In the past, this Court repeatedly denied the payment of disability benefits to seamen who failed to comply with the
mandatory reporting and examination requirement. Thus, the three-day period from return of the seafarer or sign-off
from the vessel, whether to undergo a post-employment medical examination or report the seafarer's physical
incapacity, should always be complied with to determine whether the injury or illness is work-related.
To the mind of this Court, Dizon failed to substantiate his entitlement to disability benefits for a work-related illness
under the POEA-SEC. It appears from the records that Dizon did not submit himself to a post employment medical
examination within three days from his arrival after completing his last contract with the respondents. Dizon does not
proffer an explanation or reason for his failure to comply with the said mandatory requirement given that he claims
that his illness purportedly occurred during the term of his contract.
It is also incumbent upon the seafarer to show that he developed the cardiovascular disease under any of the three
conditions to constitute the same as an occupational disease for which a seafarer may claim compensation.
It is crucial that Dizon present concrete proof showing that he indeed acquired or contracted the illness which
resulted in his disability during the term of his employment contract. Other than his uncorroborated and self-serving
allegation that his ailment was work-related because his pre-employment medical examination was only less than a
month from his last contract, Dizon failed to demonstrate that his illness developed under any of the conditions set
forth in the POEA-SEC for the said to be considered as a compensable occupational disease.
Records are bereft of evidence to establish that Dizon, being subjected to strain at work as a Chief Cook,
manifested any symptoms or signs of heart illness in the performance of his work during the term of his contract,
and that such symptoms persisted. Although his hypertension was known to the respondents, there was no
evidence to prove that the strain caused by Dizon's work aggravated his heart condition. There was no proof that he
reported his illness while on board and after his repatriation. He did not present any written note, request, or record
about any medical check-up, consultation or treatment during the term of his contract.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Andres L. Dizon is hereby DENIED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals is SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED.

Dizon v. NAESS Shipping June 2016 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dizon v. NAESS Shipping June 2016 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 1, 2016 – Disability Benefits

G.R. No. 201834

ANDRES L. DIZON, petitioner,

The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Dizon is entitled to the Disability Benefit.

You might also like