JOEL P. RODEROS, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND DIVISION) MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED AND/OR MARLOW NAVIGATION COMPANY LTD., CYPRUS AND/…
BUESER, J.:
THE ANTECEDENTS
Extracted from the records, the antecedents are:
On May 27, 2011, Joel was hired by respondent Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. (Marlow Navigation, for brevity), for and in behalf of its foreign principal Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., as a wiper on board M/V Beluga Mobilisation under the following terms and conditions:
Duration of Contract – 10 months Position – Wiper Basic Monthly Salary – USD450.00/mo. Hours of Work – 44 HRS/Wk Point of Hire – Manila[4]
Joel underwent a pre-employment medical examination. In said medical examination he made representations and declarations that he did not suffer any muscular weakness, tingling sensation, swelling of the feet, back injury, joint pain, arthritis, rheumatism. He further declared that he was not signed off from any vessel; that he was never hospitalized; and that he was not medically repatriated. On account of such representations and declarations, Joel was declared to work by the Company doctor.[5]
Upon arrival at Colombo, Sri Lanka, Joel boarded the vessel M/V Lina and performed the duties demanded by the position as Wiper.[6] However, on November 3, 2011, he started to complain of pain in his legs accompanied by swellings. It was so painful that on that morning he could even stand up from his bed. He informed the Captain of the vessel of his condition. The Captain immediately arranged for his medical consultation with a doctor in Russia. Upon seeing his condition, the physician gave him a pain reliever for the meantime and at the same time recommended his medical repatriation.[7]
Due to his medical condition, Joel did not report for work anymore until the vessel reached the port of Busan, South Korea, where he was repatriated.[8]
Upon his arrival in the Philippines on November 7, 2011, he reported at the office of Marlow Navigation. He was referred to the Company Physician Dr. Carlo Sampaico of the University Physicians Medical Center, who observed and treated him as an out-patient.[9] He was diagnosed to be suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and meniscal tear.[10]
On February 13, 2012, Joel underwent surgical operation of his right knee. After his operation, he was given set of medicines for his medication.[11]
Feeling aggrieved, he filed a case before the Labor Arbiter. In his Complaint, he claimed that his disability is total and permanent. He added that his condition is compensable since it was work-related and work-aggravated. He believed that he was entitled to full disability benefits because his illness lasted for more than 120 days.[12]
On the other hand, Marlow Navigation alleged that Joel was not entitled to disability benefits since he is guilty of misrepresenting his true medical condition. It was further argued that Roderos was not entitled to disability benefits on the ground that his present condition was a pre-existing illness and that the same was not work-related as opined by the Company doctor.[13]
LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION
After consideration on the merits, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joel’s Complaint for lack of merit.[14]
In its Decision, the Labor Arbiter justified its ruling to divest Joel of his right to claim for compensation and other benefits for reasons that he misrepresented his actual medical condition during his pre-employment medical examination. Pursuant to POEA Standard Contract Governing the Employment of Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, such misrepresentation disqualifies him from any compensation and benefits. The Labor Arbiter likewise opined that Joel’s illness is not work-related inasmuch as, other than the fact that it is not included in the list of occupational diseases under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, he failed to prove that such illness is work-related.[15]
NLRC’S RULING
On June 21, 2013, Joel appealed the dismissal of his Complaint to the National Labor Relations Commission.
On March 27, 2013, the NLRC rendered its Decision affirming in toto the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.[16]
In affirming the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, the NLRC totally agreed with the former that Joel’s illness was not compensable because it was not work-related inasmuch as it was not included in the list of occupational diseases under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Besides, Joel failed to prove with substantial evidence that his illness was work-related. Further, the NLRC likewise observed that he misrepresented his true medical condition at the pre-employment medical examination as Joel, confirmed by medical records, was declared totally unfit to work in his previous employment with Anglo Eastern Crew Management Phils, Inc. As a matter of fact, he was awarded full disability benefits to the tune of $88,000.00 due to Internal Derangement of the Knee.[17]
Joel’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.[18]
THE ISSUES
Hence, this Petition, on account of a twin issues, to wit:
- WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS AS HIS AILMENT WAS NOT CONTRACTED ON BOARD THE VESSEL AND HE CONTENDED THAT THE INJURY WAS PRE-EXISTING DESPITE PETITIONER’S FULL DISCLOSURE.
- WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.[19]
OUR RULING
Petitioner Joel argues that he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits as his ailment was contracted while employed on board the vessel.
We do not agree.
That his ailment on his knee is one which Joel contracted while on board the vessel operated by respondent cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that his knee ailment was pre-existing. Apparently, it was contracted during his previous employment on board another vessel of another company. As a matter of fact, the records show that he previously filed a claim for disability benefits due to internal derangement of his knee against his previous employer Anglo Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc. and was awarded US$88,000.00 as payment for full disability benefits. It is, thus, clear that petitioner’s knee ailment was contracted prior to his employment on board the vessel operated by respondent. Hence, it was, in short, a pre-existing condition or illness.
Besides, Joel’s non-disclosure of his medical condition at the time he underwent Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME) disqualifies him from receiving any compensation or benefits for his illness. In other words, for failure to disclose during his PEME that he was suffering from a pre-existing knee ailment, he is precluded from receiving said benefits.
Section 20 (E) of the POEA-SEC, otherwise known as the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, is clear on this matter, viz.:
“SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
xxx xxx xxx
- A seafarer who knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall disqualify him from any compensation and benefits. This may also be a valid ground for termination of employment and imposition of the appropriate administrative and legal sanctions.” (Emphasis ours)
Further, the fact that he was declared no longer fit for sea duty in any capacity in his previous employment, entitling him to receive an amount representing total and permanent disability in said previous employment, preclude him from being entitled and obtaining another disability compensation. Needless to say, he is disqualified from receiving a double total and permanent disability benefits.
Joel’s contention that he passed his PEME and, thus, he is entitled to his disability claims, does not hold water either.
PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition.[20] It merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service” and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The “fit to work” declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.[21] Hence, the fact that Joel did hurdle the PEME did not absolutely determine whether he had pre-existing ailment that would bar him from employment.
It is true that the pre-existence of an illness does not irrevocably bar compensability because disability laws still grant the same provided the seafarer’s working conditions bear causal connection with his illness.[22]
These rules, however, cannot be asserted perfunctorily by the claimant as it is incumbent upon him to prove, by substantial evidence, as to how and why the nature of his work and working conditions contributed to and/or aggravated his illness.[23] Joel failed to discharge this burden of proof.
In the present, We find no evidence on record showing the specific essential facts on how and why Joel’s working conditions exacerbated his rheumatoid arthritis ailment. Joel failed to particularly describe his working conditions while on sea duty. Likewise, no expert medical opinion was presented regarding the causes of his illness. On record are mere general statements presented as self-serving allegations which were not validated by any written document visibly demonstrating[24] that the working conditions on board the vessel served to worsen Joel’s knee ailment.
Indeed, it is undisputed that disability compensation cannot certainly rest on mere allegations couched in conjectures and baseless inferences from which work-aggravation or relatedness cannot be presumed. Bare allegations do not suffice to discharge the required quantum of proof of compensability. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions. The beneficiaries must present evidence to prove a positive proposition.[25]
Anent Joel’s claim for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees, suffice it to state that his failure to substantiate his claim for disability compensation bars him from being entitled to such awards.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Resolution dated March 27, 2013 rendered by the NLRC is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Bruselas, Jr., A.D., Chairman and [*]Reyes Carpio, A., JJ., concur.
[*] Acting Junior Member for fifteen (15) working days only from March 17, 2015 per Office Order No. 81-15-ABR dated March 16, 2015.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-19.
[2] Id., pp. 27-32.
[3] Id., pp. 33-39.
[4] Rollo, p. 41.
[5] Id., p. 33; pp. 64-65.
[6] Id., p. 7.
[7] Id., p. 8.
[8] Rollo, p. 8.
[9] Id.
[10] Id., p. 34.
[11] Id., p. 8.
[12] Id., pp. 34, 45-48.
[13] Id., pp. 34, 71-101.
[14] Id., pp. 33-39.
[15] Rollo, pp. 34-38.
[16] Id., pp. 27-32.
[17] Id., pp. 29-31.
[18] Id., pp. 25-26.
[19] Rollo, p. 10.
[20[ Status Maritime Corp. v. Delalamon, G.R. No. 198097, July 30, 2014: citing Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban, G.R. No. 186509, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 467, 491.
[21] Status Maritime Corp. v. Delalamon, supra: citing Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division), G.R. No. 186180, March 22, 2010, 616 SCRA 362, 378-379.
[22] Status Maritime Corp. v. Delalamon, supra: citing Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division), G.R. No. 186180, March 22, 2010, 616 SCRA 362, 373-374.
[23] Status Maritime Corp. v. Delalamon, supra: citing Aya-ay, Sr. v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp., 516 Phil. 628, 639-640 (2006).
[24] see Status Maritime Corp. v. Delalamon, supra: citing Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc., G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 309, 320.
[25] Status Maritime Corp. v. Delalamon, G.R. No. 198097, July 30, 2014: citing Gabunas, Sr. v. Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 188637, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 770, 779 (Citation Omitted.