Facts
On June 22, 2012, respondent Belchem Singapore Pte. Ltd., through its local agent, respondent Belchem Philippines, Inc., hired petitioner Nelson M. Celestino as third officer for a period of nine months.
Prior to his deployment, petitioner underwent routinary pre-employment medical examination (PEME). When asked whether he had or had been told he had suffered from, among others, diabetes mellitus, he answered in the negative.
On December 8, 2012, petitioner experienced severe body discomfort with high fever, chills, and convulsions. Petitioner was then admitted to the Fiden Medical Center in Tema, Ghana, West Africa, where he was diagnosed as someone in the early stages of diabetes. After confinement and medication, he was repatriated on December 14, 2012.
When he arrived in the country, petitioner reported to Belchem Philippines, Inc. for PEME. He was referred to one of the company-designated physicians, Dr. Quan. After a laboratory examination, Dr. Quan issued an initial impression noting that the petitioner was suffering from “Diabetes Mellitus.”
Petitioner was advised to undergo continuous monitoring and check-up by other company-designated physicians until August 31, 2013. Dr. Quan confirmed that petitioner was suffering from “Diabetes Mellitus” with an incidental finding of “Ureterolithiasis”.
On July 1, 2013, petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees against respondents.
On September 2, 2013, or two months after filing the complaint, petitioner decided to consult his own physician, Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Tan), who issued a medical certificate diagnosing him with permanent disability.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioner was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, which the NLRC reversed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s Decision. It held that when the petitioner filed his complaint for disability benefits on July 1, 2013, he was still on his 199th day of treatment since he was referred to the company-designated physician upon his repatriation on December 14, 2012. Thus, petitioner was still under total and temporary disability inasmuch as the extension of the 240-day period provided under the POEA-SEC had not yet lapsed. There being no final assessment, petitioner’s condition could not be considered as a total and permanent disability.
Furthermore, Petitioner’s illnesses, “Diabetes Mellitus” and its complication “Ureteralithiasis” are not listed as occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC and are, therefore, not compensable.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the complaint was prematurely filed.
2. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
Ruling
- NO. Orient Hope Agencies v. Jara set out the guidelines to determine a seafarer’s disability, viz.:
- a. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to [them];
- b. If the company-designated physician fails to give [their] assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes (total and permanent);
- c. If the company-designated physician fails to give [their] assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
- d. If the company-designated physician still fails to give [their] assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
Verily, if the company-designated physician still fails to give their assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification, as in this case.
Here, petitioner got repatriated and referred to one of the company-designated physicians on December 14, 2012. Thereafter, he was eventually told that his “ongoing treatment” shall last until August 31, 2013. Notably, however, the 240-day maximum period for assessment of petitioner’s disability grading started on December 14, 2012, and already ended on August 11, 2013. The advice, therefore, for the petitioner to undergo further treatment to last until August 31, 2013, or 20 days beyond the 240-day period, was an effective declaration that his “Diabetes Mellitus and Ureterolithiasis” are permanent, and his disability, total.
All told, the petitioner cannot be faulted for filing his complaint on the 199th day of his ongoing treatment, even before the lapse of the 240-day period, nor can he be faulted for acquiring a second opinion from his own physician only after he had already initiated his complaint. For even prior to such date, he was already deemed to be suffering from total and permanent disability.
- YES. The POEA-SEC provides that if the employee is suffering from any of the occupational diseases or illnesses listed under its Section 32(A), such disease is deemed to be work-related, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, on the other hand, states that if the illness, such as “Diabetes Mellitus,” is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A), there is still a disputable presumption that the ailment is work-related. This means that there is a legal presumption in favor of the seafarer that their illness is work-related, and the employer has the burden of presenting evidence to overcome such presumption.
During his employment as third officer, petitioner was assigned duties which were physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing due to its long hours of work. Too, during the 9-month duration of his employment, he was constrained to eat the high-fat, high-cholesterol food served on the ship. It was during this time that he developed his illnesses and had to be medically repatriated due to their severity.
Notably, prior to assuming his duties as third officer, he was declared “fit to work” in his PEME. It was only during his work therein that he was diagnosed with “Diabetes Mellitus” and “Ureterolithiasis”. While these illnesses are not listed as occupational diseases under Section 32(A) of the POEA-SEC, said ailments are still presumed to be work-related under Section 20(B)(4) of the contract. Respondents have the burden of overcoming such a presumption.
As held in Flores v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, “Diabetes Mellitus” is generally not compensable. It is, however, compensable in instances when it is complicated with other illnesses.
Here, the petitioner was diagnosed by the company-designated physicians with “Diabetes Mellitus” complicated with “Ureterolithiasis”, another illness previously deemed as compensable in GSIS v. Court of Appeals and Lilia S. Arreola.
Lastly, although a PEME is not conclusive proof to show that a seafarer is free from any ailment, the Court, in previous cases, has referred to the results of a PEME to conclude that a disability only arose during employment.