THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 201834, June 01, 2016

ANDRES L. DIZON, Petitioner, v. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND DOLE UK
(LTD.),Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Andres L. Dizon
assailing the Decision1 dated February 28, 2012 and Resolution2 dated May 9, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision3 and Resolution dated October 30, 2009
and February 26, 2010, respectively, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
which declared respondents Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. and DOLE UK (Ltd.) not liable to pay
petitioner the amount of US$66,000.00 for disability benefits and medical expenses.
The antecedents are:
Since 1976, respondents Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. and DOLE UK (Ltd.) hired petitioner
Andres L. Dizon as cook for its various vessels until the termination of his contract in 2007.4
On March 6, 2006, Dizon was hired as Chief Cook and boarded DOLE COLOMBIA under the
following terms and conditions:5
Contract Duration

9 months

Position

Chief Cook

Basic monthly salary

US$670.00

Hours of work

44 hours/week

Overtime

US$373.00 GOT in excess of 85 hours

US$4.3 8/hour
US$5.01/hour in excess of 90 hours

Vacation leave with pay

9 days/month

Point of hire

Manila

Dizon disembarked after completing his contract on February 14, 2007. He then went on a
vacation, and was called for another employment contract after a month.6
When he underwent pre-employment medical examination in March 2007, he was declared
unfit for sea duties due to uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease as certified
by the doctors of the Marine Medical and Laboratory Clinic (MMLC).7 He was referred to
undergo stress test and electrocardiogram (ECG). He then went to PMP Diagnostic Center
Inc. for diagnostic tests.8 It was also recommended that he undergo Angioplasty.9 His
treadmill stress test showed that he had Abnormal Stress Echocardiography.10 The result of

his treadmill stress test stated:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Abnormal Stress Fxhocardiography at 10.2 MFTS with evidence of stress-inducible ischemic
myocardium at risk involving the left anterior descending and right coronary artery
territories.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Unconvinced with the doctor's declaration of unfitness, Dizon went to the Seamen's Hospital
and submitted himself for another examination.12
The result indicated that he was fit for sea duty.13 He returned to MMLC and requested for a
re-examination, but the same was denied.14
In November 2008, Dizon filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and
Employment, but subsequently withdrew the same.15
On January 6, 2009, Dizon filed a complaint against respondents for payment of total and
permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical, hospital and
transportation expenses, moral damages, attorney's fees and interest before the Labor
Arbiter (LA).16
Claiming that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefit, Dizon alleged that he
incurred his illness while on board the respondents' vessel.17 He claimed that his working
conditions on board were characterized by stress, heavy work load, and over fatigue.18 He
averred that Dr. Marie T. Magno re-evaluated his actual medical condition on February 16,
2009 and declared him unfit to resume his work as seafarer since his heart condition is
unable to tolerate moderate to severe exertions.19
Dizon asserted that he disclosed his hypertension prior to his last contract in 2006, but was
certified fit for duty for the nine-month employment contract.20
For their part, respondents disavowed liability for Dizon's illness maintaining that he finished
and completed his contract on board their vessel Dole Colombia without any incident, and
that his sickness was not work-related.21 They rejected the redeployment of Dizon since he
was declared unfit for sea duty in his pre-employment medical examination. Respondents
claimed that they were only exercising their freedom to choose which employees to hire. 22
In a Decision23 dated May 29, 2009, the LA ruled that Dizon is entitled to full disability
benefits. The LA held that it can be logically concluded that Dizon's illness arose during the
period of his employment since less than a month transpired between his repatriation and
the pre-employment medical examination.24 This disposition finds support from the
undisputed fact that Dizon had been continuously employed by respondents for 30 years
while performing similar duties under the same working conditions.25 The LA found that the
respondents failed to adduce evidence to overcome the presumption of compensability in
favor of the seafarer. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering Naess Shipping
Phils. Inc. and/or DOLE UK (Ltd.). jointly and severally, to pay complainant Andres L. Dizon
the Philippine peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of US DOLLARS SIXTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS (US$60,000.00) representing permanent total disability benefits, plus
ten percent (10%) thereof as and for attorney's fees or the aggregate amount of US
DOLLARS SIXTY SIX THOUSAND (US$66,000.00).
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of LA for finding that Dizon did not
comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working
days upon arrival.27The NLRC held that Dizon failed to prove through substantial evidence
that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting coronary artery disease.
The fallo of the decision reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor
Arbiter declaring Nacss Shipping Phils. Inc. and/or DOLE UK (Ltd.) jointly and severally
liable to pay Andres L. Dizon US Dollars Sixty Six Thousand Pesos (US$66,000.00)
isREVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, for humanitarian considerations, taking into
account complainant's unblemished record of thirty (30) years of service to respondents,
the latter are hereby directed to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) financial assistance
to complainant.
SO ORDERED.28ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Aggrieved, Dizon assailed the NLRC's reversal of the LA's decision before the CA through a
petition for certiorari. The CA denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The October 30, 2009 Decision
and the February 26, 2010 Resolution of the Public Respondent National Labor Relations
Commission are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.29ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration, Dizon filed before this Court the present
petition raising the following issues:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW

IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS
FOR. FAILURE TO REPORT WITHIN 72 HOURS FROM HIS REPATRIATION.

II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS QUESTION OF

LAW IN RULING THAT THE ILLNESS OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT WORK
RELATED DESPITE NOT HAVING FACTUAL NOR MEDICAL BASIS.

III.

THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS

AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT AWARDING MORAL
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AS WELL AS ATTORNEY'S FEES.

Simply, the issue to be resolved is whether the petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.
We answer in the negative and deny the instant petition.
Dizon asseverates that his right to claim total and permanent disability benefits is not
forfeited when he failed to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination before
the company-designated doctor within three working days upon his arrival because such
failure to comply would only forfeit his claims for the 120 days sickness allowance.30

Settled is the rule that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a
matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract.31
Section 20(B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment AdministrationStandard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) reads:32
Section 20-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:
xxxx
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 with 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.
xxx
The law specifically declares that failure to comply with the mandatory reporting
requirement shall result in the seafarer's forfeiture of his right to claim benefits
thereunder.33 In Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra,34 this Court expounded
on the mandatory reporting requirement provided under the POEA-SEC and the
consequence for failure of the seaman to comply with the requirement, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The foregoing provision has been interpreted to mean that it is the company-designated
physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability,
whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the
hitter's employment. Conccdedly, this does not mean that the assessment of said
physician is final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts.
Should he be so minded, the seafarer has the prerogative to request a second opinion and
to consult a physician of his choice regarding his ailment or injury, in which case the medical
report issued by the latter shall be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court, based on
its inherent merit. For the seaman's claim to prosper, however, it is mandatory that
he should be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from
his repatriation. Failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement
without justifiable cause shall result in forfeiture of the right to claim the
compensation and disability benefits provided under the POEASEC.35ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Moreover, that the three-day post employment medical examination is mandatory brooks no
argument, as held in Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer:36

The rationale for the rule [on mandatory post-employment medical examination within three
days from repatriation by a company-designated physician] 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. The
employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability
claims.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In the past, this Court repeatedly denied the payment of disability benefits to seamen who
failed to comply with the mandatory reporting and examination requirement. 38 Thus, the
three-day period from return of the seafarer or sign-off from the vessel, whether to undergo
a post-employment medical examination or report the seafarer's physical incapacity, should
always be complied with to determine whether the injury or illness is work-related. 39
To the mind of this Court, Dizon failed to substantiate his entitlement to disability benefits
for a work-related illness under the POEA-SEC. It appears from the records that Dizon did
not submit himself to a post employment medical examination within three days from his
arrival after completing his last contract with the respondents. Dizon does not proffer an
explanation or reason for his failure to comply with the said mandatory requirement given
that he claims that his illness purportedly occurred during the term of his contract.
Instead, Dizon alleges that the failure to comply with the mandatory reporting and
examination requirement merely forfeits his claim for sickness allowance. To substantiate his
claim, he invokes the following rules in statutory construction: (a) Courts should not
incorporate matters not provided in law by judicial ruling; (b) The court must look into the
spirit of the law or the reason for it in construing a statute; (c) When the language admits of
more than one interpretation that which tends to give effect to the manifest object of the
law should be adopted; and (d) Statutes must be construed to avoid injustice.
We find Dizon's allegation that the terms "above benefits" in Section 20(B), paragraph 3 of
POEA-SEC refer only to sickness compensation, thus, the mandatory reporting requirement
is applicable only to claim for sickness allowance specious.
In fine, this Court finds Dizon's failure to comply with the three-day post-employment
medical examination fatal to his cause. We cannot overemphasize that failure to comply
with the mandatory reporting requirement without justifiable cause shall result in forfeiture
of the right to claim the compensation and disability benefits provided under the POEA-SEC,
thus, not confined to claim for sickness compensation mentioned in Section 20(B),
paragraph 3 of the 2000 POEA-SEC.
Dizon asserts that his coronary artery disease is work-related given that his preemployment medical examination was less than a month since his repatriation.40 He alleges
that the medical records that respondents presented did not indicate that his illness has
been declared by the company-designated doctor as not work-related.41 Dizon insists that
the working conditions prevailing during his employment on board the vessel are
characterized, among others, by stress, heavy workload, over-fatigue.42
It is settled that a person who claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law must
establish his right thereto by substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."43 Hence, the burden is

on the seafarer to prove that he suffered from a work-related injury or illness during the
term of his contract.44 Dizon has the burden to prove through substantial evidence that he is
entitled to disability benefits, which includes evidence that his illness is work-related and
existed during the terms of his contract.
Section 20 (B), paragraph 6 of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits
enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an
illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at
the time the illness or disease was contracted. x x x
For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, two elements
must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related
injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment
contract.45 It is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered
him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal
connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been
contracted.46
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of
the following conditions must be satisfied:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the
describefd] risks;
3. The disease was contacted within a period of exposure and under such other
factors necessary to contract it; [and]
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Work-related illness, as defined in the 2000 POEA-SEC, is any sickness resulting to disability
or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract
with the conditions set therein satisfied.47
Section 32-A (11) of the 2000 POEA-SEC expressly considers Cardiovascular Disease as an
occupational disease if it was contracted under any of the following instances, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a. if the heart disease was known to have been present during employment,
there must proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the
unusual strain by reasons of the nature of his work.
b. The strain of work thai brings about an acute attack must be sufficient
severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of cardiac
insult to constitute causal relationship.

c. If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to

strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the
performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is
reasonable to claim a causal relationship.
As can be gleaned from the above provision, it is incumbent upon the seafarer to show that
he developed the cardiovascular disease under any of the three conditions to constitute the
same as an occupational disease for which a seafarer may claim compensation.48
It is stressed that Dizon's repatriation was due to expiration of his employment contract and
not because of medical reasons. His coronary artery disease which rendered him unfit for
sea duty was diagnosed during a pre-employment medical examination and not in a postemployment medical examination as provided by law.
It is crucial that Dizon present concrete proof showing that he indeed acquired or contracted
the illness which resulted in his disability during the term of his employment contract. Other
than his uncorroborated and self-serving allegation that his ailment was work-related
because his pre-employment medical examination was only less than a month from his last
contract, Dizon failed to demonstrate that his illness developed under any of the conditions
set forth in the POEA-SEC for the said to be considered as a compensable occupational
disease.
Records are bereft of evidence to establish that Dizon, being subjected to strain at work as a
Chief Cook, manifested any symptoms or signs of heart illness in the performance of his
work during the term of his contract, and that such symptoms persisted. Although his
hypertension was known to the respondents, there was no evidence to prove that the strain
caused by Dizon's work aggravated his heart condition. There was no proof that he reported
his illness while on board and after his repatriation. He did not present any written note,
request, or record about any medical check-up, consultation or treatment during the term of
his contract.
We note that all that Dizon put forward is a dogged insistence that his working conditions
are proof enough that his work as a Chief Cook contributed to his contracting the disease,
and that the short period between his repatriation and the pre employment medical
examination validates his claim that he contracted his illness during the term of his contract
and is work-related.
This Court is well aware of the principle that, consistent with the purposes underlying the
formulation of the POEA-SEC, its provisions must be applied fairly, reasonably and liberally
in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then that its beneficent provisions can be fully carried
into effect.49 However, this catchphrase cannot be taken to sanction the award of disability
benefits and sickness allowance based on flimsy evidence and even in the face of an
unjustified non-compliance with the three-day mandatory reporting requirement under the
POEA-SEC.50
While this Court sympathizes with Dizon's predicament, we are, however, constrained to
deny the instant petition for failing to establish by substantial evidence his entitlement to
disability benefits, having failed to undergo a post-employment medical examination as
required under the law without valid or justifiable reason, and to establish that his illness
was contracted during the term of his contract and that the same was work-related. Since it
is established that Dizon is not entitled to disability benefits, it follows that he is also not
entitled to any claim for moral and exemplary damages.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated May 22, 2012 filed by petitioner
Andres L. Dizon is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated February 28, 2012 and Resolution
dated May 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114226 affirming the Decision
and Resolution dated October 30, 2009 and February 26, 2010, respectively, of the National
Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CASE No. (OFW-M) 01-00038-09
are SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., on leave.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary