DANILO A. LERONA, PETITIONER, VS. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO., LTD., AND/OR MS. ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.

Lerona versus Sea Power Shipping Enterprises

The Case

This is a labor case about a seafarer's claim for total and permanent disability benefits. Danilo Lerona, a fitter employed by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Incorporated on behalf of Neda Maritime Agency Company, Limited, sued his employers for disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, and attorney's fees after he was repatriated from his vessel. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the three defenses that most often defeat a seafarer's disability claim: fraudulent misrepresentation in the pre-employment medical examination, the strict requisites for compensable hypertension, and medical abandonment of the company-designated physician's treatment. It also fixes the reckoning rule between the 120-day and 240-day periods for the company physician's assessment.

Procedural History

Lerona filed his complaint before the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering the respondents to pay permanent and total disability benefits of 60,000 dollars and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the award. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the labor arbiter and dismissed the complaint. On Lerona's motion for reconsideration, however, the Commission reversed itself and reinstated the labor arbiter's ruling. The respondents' second motion for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals set aside the Commission's resolution, found grave abuse of discretion, and reinstated the Commission's initial decision dismissing the complaint. It held that Lerona committed misrepresentation by concealing his hypertension, that the lapse of more than 120 days does not automatically entitle a seafarer to benefits, and that Lerona failed to observe the third doctor referral rule. The Court of Appeals denied Lerona's motion for reconsideration.

Lerona elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Although a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law, the Court reviewed the facts because of the conflicting findings of the labor arbiter and the Commission on one hand and the Court of Appeals on the other, which is a recognized exception to the rule.

Facts

On February 27, 2009, Sea Power Shipping Enterprises employed Lerona, on behalf of Neda Maritime Agency, as a fitter on board the vessel M/V Penelope, with a monthly salary of 550 dollars, under a three-month contract extendible for one month upon mutual consent. Before deployment, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was declared fit to work as a seaman. He boarded the vessel on March 6, 2009.

On August 1, 2009, he felt severe chest pains and dizziness and asked for a medical checkup. He was brought to a hospital in China, but the examining doctor prescribed no medication and recommended neither hospitalization nor repatriation. He was nonetheless repatriated to the Philippines on August 13, 2009, and confined the next day at the De Los Santos Medical Center, where he was examined by the respondents' accredited physicians. The company-designated physician, Doctor Gonzales, noted that Lerona complained of body weakness and disclosed that he had been hypertensive and taking Norvasc for two years. A cardiologist suspected coronary arterial disease, and Lerona underwent laboratory tests, a stress-thallium test, and a coronary angiogram. The angiogram was negative for vessel abnormality; he needed no surgery, only medical treatment and lifestyle modification. He was later found to have mild hearing loss on both ears, for which he was prescribed Vitamin B complex. Doctor Gonzales cleared him of coronary arterial disease and placed him under observation, requiring him to return on October 23, 2009 for a follow-up checkup and medical clearance. Lerona did not appear, and Doctor Gonzales declared him to have absconded.

Unknown to the respondents, Lerona consulted Doctor Vicaldo of the Philippine Heart Center on December 17, 2009, who diagnosed hypertensive cardiovascular disease and angina pectoris, with an impediment grade of seven, or 41.80 percent, and declared him permanently unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity. On January 14, 2010, Lerona filed his complaint. During the mandatory conference, upon the respondents' insistence, he returned to Doctor Gonzales on April 21, 2010, and was declared fit to resume sea duties.

Issues

• Whether or not Lerona is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
• Whether or not Lerona's concealment of his pre-existing hypertension in his pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation that disqualifies him from disability compensation.
• Whether or not Lerona's hypertension is a compensable occupational disease under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which the Court calls the 2000 POEA-SEC.
• Whether or not Lerona committed medical abandonment that bars his claim.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides:

E. 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.

This is the provision that bars Lerona's claim outright, because he knowingly concealed his hypertension in his pre-employment medical examination.

Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides:

20. Essential Hypertension. Hypertension classified as primary or essential is considered compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting in permanent disability; Provided, that the following documents substantiate it: (a) chest x-ray report, (b) ECG report, (c) blood chemistry report, (d) funduscopy (sic) report, and (f) (sic) C-T scan.

This provision supplies the requisites for compensable hypertension, which Lerona failed to satisfy.

Section 20(D) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides:

No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties.

This is the provision behind the ruling that Lerona's abandonment of his treatment, an intentional breach of his duties, forfeits his benefits.

Ruling

The Court denied the petition and held that Lerona is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Lerona committed fraudulent misrepresentation. He did not indicate in his pre-employment medical examination form that he had hypertension, although he had been taking Norvasc as maintenance medicine for two years. His claim of an honest belief that his condition had been resolved is belied by his continuing medication. Worse, within those two years he had boarded the respondents' ships four times, and since a pre-employment medical examination is mandatory before boarding, he concealed his hypertension no less than four times, which negates good faith. The Court also rejected the argument that the respondents are estopped because he passed his examination, holding that a fit to work declaration in the pre-employment medical examination is not conclusive proof that a seafarer is free from disease, since that examination is a mere summary of his physiological condition and does not state his real state of health.

On the second issue, even setting aside the misrepresentation, the Court held that Lerona's hypertension is not compensable. There was no showing that it impaired the function of any vital organ resulting in permanent disability, and he submitted none of the enumerated medical test results. His own physician subjected him to no tests and gave no basis for his prognosis beyond an elevated blood pressure, while his electrocardiogram showed no significant findings and his coronary angiogram was negative.

On the third issue, the Court held that Lerona committed medical abandonment. He failed to return for his medical clearance on October 23, 2009, effectively preventing the company-designated physician from making a fitness or disability assessment. While a seafarer may seek another doctor under Section 20(B)(3), that right presumes that the company-designated physician had already issued a certification. The Court explained the reckoning periods: the 120-day period applies if the duration of treatment does not exceed 120 days, the 240-day period applies if further treatment is required after the initial 120 days, and if the company physician fails to issue a declaration within those periods, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently disabled. Because Lerona filed his complaint 154 days after repatriation, before the 240-day maximum period had lapsed, he had no cause of action yet. The Court held that the 120-day rule applies only when the complaint was filed prior to October 6, 2008; for complaints filed from that date onward, the 240-day rule applies.

Doctrine

• Under Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, a seafarer who knowingly conceals a past medical condition in his pre-employment medical examination commits fraudulent misrepresentation and is disqualified from any compensation and benefits. Continuing maintenance medication negates any claim of good faith.
• A fit to work declaration in the pre-employment medical examination is not conclusive proof that the seafarer was free from any ailment before deployment, and it does not preclude the employer from rejecting his disability claim.
• Under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, essential hypertension is compensable only if it causes impairment of the function of body organs such as the kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability, and only if substantiated by the enumerated documents.
• A seafarer is duty-bound to complete his medical treatment until declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability rating by the company-designated physician. Failing to do so constitutes medical abandonment, and without a final assessment his claim for permanent total disability benefits must fail.
• The company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment within 120 or 240 days from repatriation. The 120-day rule applies only to complaints filed before October 6, 2008; the 240-day rule applies to complaints filed from that date onward.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Lerona's petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, so the respondents won and the complaint for disability benefits was dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: concealment of a pre-existing condition in the pre-employment medical examination is fraudulent misrepresentation that disqualifies a seafarer from any compensation and benefits, and abandoning the company-designated physician's treatment forfeits the claim as well. Examiners use this case to test the 120-day and 240-day reckoning rule and the requisites for compensable hypertension.