MARK ANTHONY SASO, PETITIONER, VS. 88 ACES MARITIME SERVICE, INC. AND/OR CARMENCITA A. SARREAL AND LIN WEN YU, RESPONDENTS.

Saso versus 88 Aces Maritime Service

The Case

This is a labor case about a fisherman, Mark Anthony Saso, who was injured on board a Taiwanese fishing vessel and who claimed disability benefits from his employer, 88 Aces Maritime Services, Incorporated, its managing director Carmencita Sarreal, and the foreign principal Lin Wen Yu. Saso sued for disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees. The case matters because it settles two questions every maritime labor practitioner must know: first, whether a seafarer who reports within the three-day period but is not given a post-employment medical examination forfeits his benefits, and second, when a seafarer's cause of action for total and permanent disability actually arises.

Procedural History

Saso filed his complaint before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding permanent total disability benefits of 60,000 dollars, a balance of his sickness allowance, and attorney's fees. The employer appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint, holding that Saso failed to submit to a post-employment examination within three days of repatriation and that his complaint was filed prematurely, before the 120-day period had lapsed. Saso's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition and agreed that he had forfeited his benefits and had no cause of action when he filed. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Saso then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

88 Aces engaged Saso, on behalf of its principal Lin Wen Yu, as a fisherman for 24 months at a monthly salary of 17,280 New Taiwan dollars. After passing the mandatory pre-employment medical examination, where he was declared fit to work and fit for sea service, Saso left the Philippines on February 3, 2010.

On March 12, 2010, while hauling the catch, a hanging fishnet loaded with fish knocked him down, and the fishnet and its huge rope crashed into his right thigh, fracturing it. He underwent two surgeries in two hospitals in Taiwan. He was repatriated and arrived in the country on April 20, 2010, walking on crutches.

Saso claimed that on April 23, 2010 he reported to the office of 88 Aces, but was merely told to shoulder his medical expenses first, subject to reimbursement upon proper documentation. He then went to the Philippine Orthopedic Center for examination. The employer, for its part, claimed that Saso refused to undergo a post-employment examination and ignored several summonses, and that it only issued a written advice on June 21, 2010 asking him to report for a medical check-up. On August 3, 2010, Saso filed his complaint. The company-designated physician, Dr. Recto, examined him on July 1, 2010 and again on September 3, 2010, but issued no disability assessment at that time. Saso also consulted his own physician, Dr. Magtira, who reported that he was unfit to work in his previous occupation and assessed him as partially and permanently disabled with a grade 10 impediment.

Issues

• Whether or not Saso forfeited his right to claim compensation and benefits by failing to submit to a post-employment medical examination within three working days from his repatriation.
• Whether or not Saso is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20, paragraph B, of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract provides:

Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. 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: 2. If after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician. 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. 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 within the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

This provision supplies both the three-day reporting duty and the employer's duty to provide medical attention at its cost, and the Court weighs the parties' compliance with each.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Saso. The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals held that he failed to report within three days, but the Court found that both tribunals simply side-swept his consistent allegation that he reported on April 23, 2010 and was told to shoulder his expenses. The employer never categorically denied this. The employer's own evidence, an acknowledgment receipt dated June 3, 2010, showed that it reimbursed Saso for medical expenses he incurred on April 23, 2010, the very date he claims to have reported. The Court also found the employer's claim that it summoned him several times unsupported, since the affidavit of its employee stood alone and no referral for examination was ever issued. The written advice of June 21, 2010 came well beyond the three-day period and appeared to be an afterthought. The Court stressed that the employer also has the duty to prove that the procedures were followed, and that doubt should be resolved in favor of the seafarer. Thus, the absence of a post-employment examination could not defeat his claim, because the failure was not his fault but the employer's.

On the second issue, however, the Court ruled against Saso. Following its earlier ruling in Vergara versus Hammonia Maritime Services, the Court explained the timeline: upon sign-off, the seafarer reports within three days; for the duration of treatment but not exceeding 120 days, he is on temporary total disability and receives his basic wage; if the 120 days are exceeded and further medical attention is needed, the period may be extended to a maximum of 240 days. The cause of action for total and permanent disability arises only in the instances enumerated in C.F. Sharp Crew Management versus Taok, such as the lapse of 120 days without a declaration, the lapse of 240 days without certification, or a conflict between the company physician and the seafarer's physician. Here, Saso filed his complaint on August 3, 2010, only 105 days after his repatriation on April 20, 2010. The 120-day period had not yet lapsed, and the company-designated physician had not yet issued any declaration, since Saso was still under his care and was seen again on September 3, 2010. His own physician's report could not by itself give him a cause of action, because the right to seek another doctor's opinion presumes that the company-designated physician has already made a declaration.

Doctrine

First, the three-day reporting requirement in Section 20, paragraph B, of the Standard Employment Contract is a duty on the seafarer, but the employer bears the burden of proving that the required procedures were followed. Where the seafarer reports on time but the employer fails to provide a post-employment medical examination, the absence of that examination cannot defeat the claim, because the failure is not the seafarer's fault. Any doubt in the employer's evidence is resolved in favor of the seafarer.

Second, a seafarer's cause of action for total and permanent disability does not arise merely because he is unable to work. It arises only upon the happening of the instances enumerated in C.F. Sharp Crew Management versus Taok, principally the lapse of the 120-day or 240-day period without a declaration from the company-designated physician. A complaint filed before the 120-day period lapses, and before any declaration is made, is premature.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition in part, setting aside the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission on the issue of forfeiture, but denying Saso's claim for total and permanent disability benefits because his complaint was filed prematurely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the employer, not the seafarer, must prove compliance with the post-employment examination procedure, and a claim for total and permanent disability ripens only after the 120-day or 240-day period lapses without a declaration. Examiners use this case to test the interplay between the three-day reporting rule and the 120-day rule, and to trap students who confuse the two periods.