TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s right to a full medical assessment and disability benefits isn’t limited to the specific illness that caused their repatriation. If a seafarer reports or is diagnosed with any ailment during their mandatory post-employment medical exam (PEME) within three days of repatriation, the employer is liable for its assessment and potential compensation, even if it’s different from the repatriation reason. This case clarifies that employers cannot evade responsibility for a seafarer’s total health picture upon return, ensuring comprehensive care and just compensation for all work-related illnesses manifesting during their employment contract, not just the immediately obvious ones.

Unseen Ailments, Unwavering Rights: Ensuring Comprehensive Seafarer Health Assessments Beyond Initial Repatriation Cause

Imagine a seafarer medically repatriated for one condition, only to discover another, equally debilitating ailment upon returning home. Should their claim for disability benefits be confined solely to the initial reason for repatriation, or does it extend to all medical issues surfacing during the mandatory post-employment medical examination? This is the core question addressed in the consolidated cases of Blue Manila, Inc. vs. Antonio R. Jamias, where the Supreme Court tackled the scope of a seafarer’s right to medical assessment and disability compensation under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Antonio Jamias, a cook on board M/V Kwintebank, was repatriated due to an umbilical hernia. Upon arrival in Manila, within the mandated three days, he underwent a post-employment medical examination (PEME) by a company-designated physician. While his hernia was addressed, an MRI ordered during this PEME revealed a pre-existing back condition – degenerative disc disease. Despite this finding, the company-designated physician declared him fit to work, focusing solely on the resolved hernia and dismissing Jamias’ persistent back pain as age-related. Jamias sought a second opinion, and later a third doctor was appointed, but the scope of the third doctor’s evaluation was limited to whether the back issue was related to the hernia. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) initially ruled in favor of Jamias, awarding disability benefits, but the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside this award, ordering a re-evaluation by a third doctor with a proper disability grading.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the petitions, emphasized the comprehensive nature of the employer’s obligations under Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. This section, incorporated into every seafarer’s contract, outlines the employer’s responsibilities for work-related injuries or illnesses suffered during the contract term. Crucially, it mandates a post-employment medical examination within three working days of repatriation. The Court highlighted that this PEME is not merely a formality but a critical step to ascertain the seafarer’s complete medical condition upon return.

The petitioners argued that their liability was limited to the umbilical hernia, the reason for repatriation, and that Jamias’ back ailment was a pre-existing condition unrelated to his employment. However, the Supreme Court refuted this narrow interpretation. Justice Lopez, in delivering the ponencia, stated:

There is nothing in Section 20 (A) of the POEA-SEC, or the CBA that would suggest, not even remotely, that the medical attention to be extended to the seafarer must only pertain to the cause of repatriation.

The Court underscored that any illness complained of or diagnosed during the mandatory PEME is considered to have manifested during the employment term, making the employer liable. The fact that the MRI for Jamias’ back was ordered by the company-designated physician immediately upon repatriation strongly suggested that Jamias had already raised concerns about back pain. The Court dismissed the argument that the MRI was just a routine test, stating it was a “cheap shot at evading an employer’s obligations.”

Furthermore, the Court addressed the inadequacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment. By focusing solely on the hernia and issuing a fit-to-work certification without addressing the back ailment, the physician failed to provide a “complete and definite medical assessment.” This failure, according to the Court, effectively transforms a temporary disability into a permanent total disability. The Court cited previous jurisprudence emphasizing that a conclusive medical assessment must reflect the seafarer’s true health status and ability to resume work.

The Court also affirmed that osteoarthritis, or degenerative disc disease, as diagnosed in Jamias, is listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC, particularly for occupations involving heavy lifting and strenuous physical labor, which aligned with Jamias’ duties as a cook. The third doctor’s report, while limited in scope, confirmed the existence of Jamias’ back ailment, further solidifying its compensability.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the PVA’s award of total and permanent disability benefits to Jamias, amounting to US$80,000.00 plus attorney’s fees. The Court concluded that the lack of a complete and definite medical assessment by the company-designated physician, coupled with the confirmation of a work-related illness, warranted the award of full disability benefits, regardless of a specific disability grading.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Blue Manila, Inc. AND/OR Oceanwide Crew Manila, Inc. v. Antonio R. Jamias, G.R. No. 230919 & 230932, January 20, 2021