SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 245917, February 26, 2020
JOSUE A. ANTOLINO, PETITIONER, v. HANSEATIC SHIPPING PHILS. INC., LEONHARD & BLUMBERG REEDEREI GMBH & CO. KG, AND/OR ROSALINDA P. BAUMANN, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
A. REYES, JR., J.:
Medical abandonment by a seafarer carries serious consequences. When a sick or injured seafarer abandons his or her treatment, he or she forfeits the right to claim disability benefits. Of course, financial incapacity to travel to and from the place of treatment may serve as an acceptable justification for failure to attend a check-up. That said, an allegation of financial incapacity, like all allegations, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. This is especially true in situations where the manning agency has consistently provided the seafarer with sickness allowance during the treatment period.
This petition for review on certiorari1 challenges the October 31, 2018 Decision2 and the March 7, 2019 Resolution3 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150538.
Through the challenged decision and resolution, the appellate court upheld the October 21, 2016 Decision4 and the February 27, 2017 Resolution5 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the August 8, 2016 Decision6 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) awarding total and permanent disability benefits to Josue A. Antolino (Antolino).
Findings:Antolino was thereafter medically repatriated. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he immediately reported to Hanseatic, who then referred him to its designated medical provider. After a series of tests and consultations, he was subjected to physiotherapy at the Medical Center Manila.12
The radius and ulna are intact with no radiolucent fracture line seen. Specifically, at the radial head.
The bones at the wrist are normally aligned with no fracture or dislocation.
Ulnar minus variant noted.
There is a tiny calcific fleck distal to the medial epicondyle that may be due to an avulsed fragment or foreign body. There is no dislocation.
Soft tissue swelling at the left elbow is seen.
There is no displacement of the fat pad to suggest an elbow effusion.
Conclusion:
There is a calcified fleck distal to the medial humeral epicondyle that may be due to an avulsed fragment or foreign body.
No dislocation is seen.
The radius and ulna are unremarkable. Specifically, there is no fracture at the radial head.11
WHEREFORE, [p]remises [c]onsidered, this office finds the Complainant to be [t]otally and [p]ermanently disabled. Respondents, jointly and severally are held liable to [Antolino] in the amount of US$60,000.00 or its Philippine Peso [e]quivalent at the time of payment as total and permanent disability benefit as well as to pay Attorney[']s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award.
[Antolino's] other claims are denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.23 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal filed by respondents is GRANTED.After Antolino's motion for reconsideration was denied, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The Decision of Labor Arbiter Eric V. Chuanico dated August 8, 2016 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new one is entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. There being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent, the assailed Decision dated October 21, 2016 and the Resolution [dated] February 27, 2017 are hereby AFFIRMED.Antolino's motion for reconsideration having been denied, he comes before the Court praying for the reversal of the CA's decision and the reinstatement of the LA's award of total and permanent disability benefits.
SO ORDERED.29 (Emphasis in the original)
Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSIn this case, not only did Antolino fail to substantiate his bear allegation of financial in capacity, the Court also finds the allegation itself to be weak and unconvincing. Recall that for the period from June 14, 2015 to October 11, 2015, Hanseatic regularly furnished Antolino with sickness allowance in an amount equivalent to his monthly salary. During this period, which spanned almost four months, Antolino was paid a total of US$3,176.42.
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS x x x x 3. x x x x. 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. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.34 x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The records clearly established that [Antolino] knew that he had a scheduled medical follow-up on November 4, 2015. [Antolino], however, failed to honor his appointment. Several follow-up letters were sent to him by [Hanseatic] on December 2, 2015 and December 28, 2015, requiring him to report and later warning him about the forfeiture of his medical benefits in case of his non-compliance. [Antolino] still failed to report despite receiving the notices.The Court recently discussed medical abandonment in Cariño v. Maine Marine Phils., Inc.39 That case involved the disability benefits claim of Christian Cariño (Cariño), who, like Antolino, was accused of abandoning his treatment for failure to appear at a scheduled medical examination. Cariño, a La Union resident, similarly invoked financial incapacity to justify his absence at his check-up in Manila. He alleged that his employer, Maine Marine Phils., Inc. (Maine Marine), had failed to furnish him with his sickness allowance, leaving him without funds for his travel expenses. When the case was eventually brought before the Court, Cariño's explanation was given due credence. It was found that Maine Marine had indeed failed to pay him his travel allowance and that it had not even approved his treatment with the company-designated physician. The fact that Cariño consistently followed-up with Maine Marine on these matters showed that he had made every effort to ensure that his treatment would continue. The sound conclusion was that Cariño could not risk travelling to Manila after having been informed that his treatment had yet to be approved. Further, he was able to buttress his claim of financial incapacity by showing th at Maine Marine was remiss in its duty to furnish him with sickness allowance. The company's argument of medical abandonment was therefore given no weight.
[Antolino's] excuse that he had no money for airfare from Antique to Manila and requested assistance from [Hanseatic] but was refused is too tenuous to be believed. Other than his bare allegation, nothing was presented to support his claim. Further, in [Hanseatic's] December 2, 2015 letter, they already assured [Antolino] that they would cover his expenses, but still [Antolino] never sent a word.
The [LA] held that [Antolino] did not abandon his medical treatment as in fact he reported to the company doctor on January 22, 2016. We must stress, however, that by that time, after almost three (3) months from the scheduled consult, any deterioration in the medical condition of [Antolino] would have been attributable to his own negligence.
x x x x
[I]t is the obligation of the seafarer to regularly report to the company-designated doctor on the dates prescribed as much as it is the obligation of the employer to provide medical attention. [Antolino's] failure to comply has thus resulted in the forfeiture of his right to benefits.38
Further, the glaring disparity between Antolino's manifest indifference and Cariño's constant diligence militate against the former's case. Cariño was steadfast in following-up with Maine Marine regarding his sickness allowance and the approval of his treatment. On the other hand, Antolino, besides requesting Hanseatic to shoulder his travel expenses, made no effort to communicate with his employer. He did not even have the courtesy to inform Hanseatic that he would not make it to the scheduled medical examination due to his alleged financial situation. In the same vein, he could have very easily requested the deferment of his check-up to give him ample time to secure funds, subject, of course, to the periods provided in the POEA-SEC.
- 3In addition to the above obligation or the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
While, in this case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a complete and definite medical assessment within the 120-day period, the need to continue Antolino's physical therapy sessions justified the extension of the same to 240 days.43 This extended period should have given the company-designated physician ample time to completely assess Antolino's injury and recommend the appropriate disability rating, if any. Accordingly, Antolino was advised44 to report to the clinic of Transglobal Health System, Inc. in Manila on November 4, 2015, or 141 days after he suffered the injury complained of. He was adequately warned that failure to do so would result in the forfeiture of his disability benefits. However, as discussed above, he did not attend the scheduled check-up, and, precisely for this reason, the company-designated physician was unable to issue a complete and definite medical assessment.
- 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 him;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his 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
- If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.42
Endnotes:
1Rollo,pp. 30-76.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring; id. at 77-88.
3 Penned by Jhoseph Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) concurring; id. at 89-91.
4 Id. at 436-447.
5 Id. at 449-450.
6 Id. at 217-237.
7 "Reederie" in some parts of the rollo.
8 Id. at 78.
9 Id. at 437.
10 Id. at 78.
11 Id. at 127.
12 Id. at 78.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 87.
15 Id. at 78.
16 Id. at 438.
17 Id. at 439.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 79.
20 Id. at 80.
21 Id. at 225-237.
22 Id. at 227-234.
23 Id. at 237.
24 Id. at 443-444.
25 Id. at 445-446.
26 Id. at 447.
27 Id. at 84.
28 Id. at 86-87.
29 Id. at 88.
30 G.R. No. 226656, April 23, 2018, 862 SCRA 432, 442.
31Rollo, pp. 60-63.
32 Id. at 63-67.
33DOHLE Philman Manning Agency v. Inc. v. Doble, 819 Phil. 500, 503 (2017).
34 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10. series of 2010, Sec. 20(A).
35Rollo, p. 173.
36 Id. at 174.
37 Id. at 84.
38 Id. at 443-444.
39 G.R. No. 231111, October 17, 2018.
40 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, Sec. 20(A).
41 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
42 Id. at 362-363.
43See: Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307. June 6, 2018. 864 SCRA 428, where a surgical procedure performed 159 days from repatriation as held to constitute sufficient justification for the extension of the period provided in the POEA-SEC, even absent a complete and definite medical assessment.
44Rollo, p. 164.
45 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1700.
46The late Alberto B. Javier v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers. Inc., 738 Phil. 374, 389 (2014).
47Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 794 (2015).
48Phil. Long Distance Telephone Company v. Honrado, 652 Phil. 331, 339 (2010).
49Auza, Jr. v. MOL Philippines, Inc., 699 Phil. 62, 67 (2012).