NICANOR CERIOLA, PETITIONER, VS. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., MIGUEL OCA AND/OR KUWAIT OIL TANKER, RESPONDENTS.

Ceriola versus NAESS Shipping Philippines

The Case

This is a labor case between Nicanor Ceriola, a seafarer, and NAESS Shipping Philippines, Inc., together with Miguel Oca and Kuwait Oil Tanker, as respondents. Ceriola filed a complaint claiming disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, known as the POEA-SEC, for a back ailment he says arose from and was aggravated by his work on board the respondents' vessels. The case matters because it fixes the consequences of a seafarer's failure to submit to the mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days of his return, and because it clarifies which version of the POEA-SEC governs a given contract of employment.

Procedural History

The case began with Ceriola's complaint for disability benefits before the Labor Arbiter, who dismissed it for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter held that Ceriola had completed his last contract and disembarked without any complaint, that he had declared in his debriefing that all was well with his health, and that the company-designated physician had declared him fit to work, so that no disability assessment was ever made.

Ceriola appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which reversed the Labor Arbiter and granted his claim. The Commission relied on a later certification from the respondents' hospital declaring him unfit to work due to a work-related ailment, and held the respondents jointly and solidarily liable for disability benefits corresponding to the impediment grade to be provided by the Employees Compensation Commission.

The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Commission. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Commission's decision, reinstated the Labor Arbiter's dismissal, and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Ceriola's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

From 1981 onward, Ceriola served as a seafarer on board various vessels of NAESS Shipping under successive overseas employment contracts. The controversy centers on the contract beginning 6 June 1999, when he was deployed on the vessel GAS AL AHMADI. After completing that contract, he reported for an extensive medical examination for re-deployment and was diagnosed with an early stage of lumbar spondylosis, a dislocation of the lumbar vertebrae. Despite the diagnosis, he was declared fit to work and was deployed on two successive contracts on the vessel GAS AL BURGAN, first from 8 July 2000 to 12 April 2001, and then from 7 July 2001 to 12 April 2002.

Between those two contracts, while experiencing severe back pains, he underwent another medical examination, which showed that the dislocation of his lumbar vertebrae had aggravated. Because his earlier fit-to-work clearance was effective for two years, he was nevertheless re-deployed on the second GAS AL BURGAN contract.

After that last contract ended on 12 April 2002, Ceriola accomplished a debriefing questionnaire on 16 April 2002, stating that all was well during his contract, including his health. In July 2002, for possible re-deployment, he underwent a medical examination and was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician. Later, however, a medical certification from Seamen's Hospital covering consultations from 11 June 2002 to 1 April 2003 declared him unfit to work due to a work-related injury or ailment, with a diagnosis of herniated disc at levels L3-L4 and L4-L5. The tribunals and the Court of Appeals reached conflicting findings on these medical results, and it emerged that Ceriola never underwent a post-employment medical examination within three working days of his return as the POEA-SEC requires.

Issues

• Whether or not Ceriola is entitled to disability benefits under the POEA-SEC for his lumbar spondylosis and herniated disc.
• Whether or not his failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of his return forfeits his right to claim those benefits.
• Whether or not the medical examination he underwent, which he describes as a pre-post employment medical examination, substantially complies with the mandatory requirement.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20, paragraph B, of the 1996 POEA-SEC provides:

B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS. The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

This is the governing provision because the 1996 POEA-SEC was in effect when Ceriola's last contract was executed, and it makes the three-day post-employment examination mandatory and attaches forfeiture to non-compliance.

Section 20, paragraph B, of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides:

B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS. The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

The Court cites this version to show that it does not depart from the 1996 rule, except to specify expressly that the compensable injury or illness must be work-related.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Ceriola is not entitled to disability benefits. Although he asserted that his ailment was work-related and occurred during the term of his contract, he failed to establish his right by substantial evidence. The Court noted that the 2000 POEA-SEC had been temporarily suspended as to Section 20, paragraphs A, B, and D, from 11 September 2000 until 5 June 2002, so the 1996 POEA-SEC effectively governed his last contract. Under either version, the injury or illness must be work-related, and the claim must be supported by proof.

On the second issue, the Court held that Ceriola's failure to undergo the mandatory post-employment medical examination was fatal. What stood out across the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the Commission, and the Court of Appeals was that he never submitted to that examination. The Court stressed that the requirement has two requisites, namely that the examination be done by a company-designated physician and within three working days upon the seafarer's return, and that the only exception is physical incapacity, in which case a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed compliance. The Court quoted its earlier ruling on the rationale of the rule:

The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness because of the passage of time.

On the third issue, the Court held that a mere asseveration that the medical examination was both pre-employment and post-employment does not comply with the mandatory language of the POEA-SEC. The Court recognized exceptions to the rule, such as physical incapacity, as in the Wallem case where the seaman was terminally ill, and refusal by the employer to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician, as in the Interorient case, but found no such circumstance in Ceriola's case.

Doctrine

A seafarer claiming disability benefits must prove by substantial evidence that he suffered a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract, and that the injury or illness was determined in a mandatory post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of his return. Failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement results in forfeiture of the right to claim benefits, as Section 20, paragraph B, of both the 1996 and 2000 POEA-SEC expressly provides. The only statutory exception is physical incapacity to undergo the examination, in which case a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed compliance. Jurisprudence adds exceptions not found in the law, such as terminal illness and the employer's refusal to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician. A medical examination described as both pre-employment and post-employment does not satisfy the requirement.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Ceriola's petition, so the respondents prevailed and the dismissal of his complaint for disability benefits stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that failure to undergo the mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days of return forfeits the seafarer's right to disability benefits. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of Section 20, paragraph B, the recognized exceptions, and which version of the POEA-SEC governs a given employment contract.