PACIO VS DOHLE - July3,2019 - Case Digest

De La Cruz, Ajay-ann M.
Danilo L. Pacio Vs. DOHLE-Philman Manning Agency, Inc., DOHLE (IOM)

Limited and/or Manolo T. Gacutan
G.R. No. 225847
July 3, 2019
A. REYES, JR., J.:
FACTS:
On July 4, 2012, respondent Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, for and in behalf of its
principal, Doble (IOM) Limited (respondents), hired Danilo L. Pacio (petitioner) to work
as an Able Seaman in vessel MV Lady Elisabeth.5 On June 21, 2012, the petitioner
underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) at the Angelus Medical
Clinic in Makati City. The medical certificate issued subsequent and as a result of the
PEME reflected that the petitioner had disclosed that he had been suffering from
hypertension since 2011.
Despite this revelation, he was certified fit for sea duty, though he was made to sign an
undertaking where he acknowledged that he was given appropriate advice and
medication for his pre-existing hypertenension consisting of 270 capsules of amlodipine
(Dailyvasc) 5 milligrams to be taken once a day for nine months. Aside from the
acknowledgment, the petitioner was also asked to give the following declarations: (1)
That he shall religiously take his medications as advised and diligently follow the
doctor's advice; failure to do so will warrant the termination of his contract subject to
the discretion of the agency/principal/employer; and (2) that in the event of a disabling
sickness resulting from hypertension, said ailment shall be deemed preexisting and non-
compensable; consequently, no claim can be made against the company/employer.
On July 10, 2012, the petitioner departed from the Philippines and commenced
employment. Five months later, on December l0, 2012, the petitioner complained of
high blood pressure and dizziness, prompting his referral to a medical facility in
Romania. The Romanian physicians declared him unfit for sea duties and recommended
his repatriation. As a result, he was repatriated four days later and was immediately
endorsed to respondent agency's appointed physicians at the Marine Medical Services of
the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC) in Sta. Cruz, Manila for a thorough medical
examination.
Despite the notation that the latter's condition was not work-related, the respondents
shouldered the expenses for the petitioner's medical evaluation. They did not hear any
response from the petitioner for almost a year, which, for the respondents, signaled
acceptance of the medical assessment.
However, on November 11, 2013, the respondents received a Notice of Conference
from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) requiring them to
appear in a conciliation conference pursuant to the Request for Assistance filed by the
petitioner.5 During the hearing, the petitioner expressed his desire to be hired again as
“he feels strong enough to work." He stressed that if the respondents would deny his
reemployment, he should be compensated for the long years of service he had
rendered for them. The respondents denied these claims for alleged lack of basis.
On April 21, 2014, Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) Irenarco R. Rimando rendered a
Decision 14 against the respondents.
The respondents' appeal to the NLRC was struck down for lack of merit, with the NLRC
affirming the findings of the ELA in a Decision16 promulgated on September 30, 2014.
The respondents' Motion for Reconsideration was similarly denied, prompting the
respondents to seek a reprieve with the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed serious error of law in reversing the Decision and
Resolution of the NLRC, the latter havirrg affirmed the findings of the ELA that the
petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The evidence on record clearly shows that the CA did not err in reversing the factual
findings of the LA and the NLRC that the petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.
In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to comply with the outlined, statutory process
for a valid disability claim, despite the respondents' efforts to adhere to the same. The
records show that the company-designated physician was in fact able to give an
assessment of the petitioner's illness within the allotted time, contrary to the petitioner's
allegations that the respondents did not give a full report as to his condition. The Court
finds as strange the petitioner's questioning the report of the company-designated
physician, while at the same time utilizing that same report as basis for his contention
that he is unfit for duty for approximately four months, in an attempt to show that his
disability status exceeds the time allowed by law. Thus, there can be no other
conclusion that the petitioner has accepted, at the absolute least, the completeness of
the report of the company-designated physician, notwithstanding his own claim that his
own chosen physician has rendered a finding contrary to that of the respondents and
in support of the petitioner's own perceived view of his medical status.
The petitioner failed to do so, and for this and his lack of cooperation in fulfilling the
procedural and substantive requirements in alleging total and permanent disability, the
Court finds that the CA did not err in denying his disability claims.
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
hereby DENIED. The Decision dated January 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, and its
Resolution dated July 10, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No. 138514, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

PACIO VS DOHLE - July3,2019 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PACIO VS DOHLE - July3,2019 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PACIO VS DOHLE - July3,2019 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De La Cruz, Ajay-ann M.

Danilo L. Pacio Vs. DOHLE-Philman Manning Agency, Inc., DOHLE (IOM)

You might also like