Celestino vs. Belchem Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 246929. March 02, 2022 Third Division, LAZARO-JAVIER, J. [Case Digest]

 

Celestino vs. Belchem Philippines, Inc.

G.R. No. 246929. March 02, 2022

Third Division, LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Case Digest

 

Topic:

            Seafarer

            Start of Counting of 240 Days

 

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, any of the following conditions: heart trouble, diabetes mellitus, endocrine disorders, kidney or bladder trouble, he answered in the negative. He then got deployed on July 1, 2012.

            On December 8, 2012, petitioner experienced severe body discomfort with high fever, chills, and convulsions. Because his condition persisted despite medication, petitioner was admitted on December 11, 2012, at the Fiden Medical Center in Tema, Ghana, West Africa, where he was diagnosed as a "Diabetic de Novo," or someone in the early stages of diabetes. After confinement and medication, he was repatriated on December 14, 2012.

            On the same day he arrived in the country, petitioner reported to Belchem Philippines, Inc. for post-employment medical examination. He got referred to the company-designated medical facility, the Metropolitan Medical Center, Manila. After the requisite laboratory examination, Dr. Quan issued an initial impression on December 18, 2012, noting that petitioner was suffering from "Diabetes Mellitus" and prescribing medication to manage the illness. Dr. Quan then advised him to return on January 3, 2013 for further treatment, and accordingly informed Belchem of his condition.

            Under the care of an endocrinologist, petitioner continued his treatment on January 8, 2013, and consulted a nephrologist on January 22, 2013. His laboratory examinations on both days showed elevated fasting blood sugar.9 Petitioner was, thus, advised to undergo continuous monitoring and check-up by the company-designated physicians until August 31, 2013. He consulted these physicians on March 5, April 22, May 21, and June 4, 2013. In the interim, or on May 9, 2013, Dr. Quan confirmed that petitioner was suffering from "Diabetes Mellitus" with 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, thus: [Seafarer] Celestino had Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Left and the procedure does not guarantee that the stones will not recur and a possibility of a recurrent stone formation can damage the parenchyma of the kidney's ureters, that's why the [Seafarer] Celestino is very apprehensive. He is also with BP Elevation coupled with the presence of DM Type II. He already had chest pain and the occurrence/presence of elevated BP and diabetes puts [Seafarer] Celestino at a high-risk situation. He is therefore given a permanent disability for he will not be able to do his job effectively, efficiently, and productively as a [Seafarer].

            Petitioner alleged that his illnesses were work-related, having been acquired in the performance of his strenuous duties. Notably, his PEME initially declared him "fit to work," but he is now unable to carry out his job as seafarer for more than 120 days from repatriation. Therefore, he should be deemed to have suffered total and permanent disability.

            Respondents, on the other hand, maintained that diabetes is a metabolic and genetic disease that is not work-related and not considered an occupational disease under settled jurisprudence, hence, not compensable. There is nothing in petitioner's work conditions or duties that would make him prone to either illness. Consequently, he would have developed those diseases regardless of whether he was deployed at sea as third officer. Petitioner also prematurely filed his claim since he did so without yet even seeking the opinion of his own physician; in fact, he was still undergoing treatment when he filed his complaint.

            Labor arbiter ruled that petitioner was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits but dismissed his other claims and charges. NLRC ruled that petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because petitioner prematurely filed his complaint for total and permanent disability benefits because he was then still under treatment at that time and had not yet procured the medical opinion of his physician of choice.  CA affirmed the decision of NLRC; it was held that when 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. In fact, even petitioner himself admitted that he was still undergoing treatment when he filed his complaint and that his treatment ended on August 31, 2013. 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.

 

Issue:

            Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

 

Held:

            Yes; in Orient Hope Agencies v. Jara set out the guidelines to determine a seafarer's disability, viz.:

1. 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];

2. 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);

3. 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

4. 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. He was told to return regularly during the succeeding months, which he heeded conscientiously. Thus, he went and consulted with at least three company-designated physicians on the same days set by the latter for that purpose. 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 of the company-designated physicians for 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, 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 when the company-designated physicians assessed that his treatment shall last well- beyond the 240-day maximum period.

 

                Petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The employment of seafarers is governed by the contracts they enter into at the time of their engagement. So long as the contract is not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law as between the parties themselves. The POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer's contract, therefore, it is also integrated into the provisions of petitioner's employment contract with respondents.

                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.

                As third officer for respondents, petitioner performed duties that exposed him to various hazards and stresses. He was constantly placed in harsh conditions and exposed to perils of the sea. His work consisted of physically strenuous tasks that lasted anywhere from eight to sixteen hours a day. He was constrained to eat only food from the vessel that regularly consisted of preserved meats high in fats and cholesterol.

                On December 8, 2012, or after more than five months of rendering services for respondents, his body finally broke. He experienced severe fever, body aches, chills, and convulsions until he had to be brought to a hospital where he was diagnosed as "Diabetic De Novo." He was confined there for three days and had to be repatriated back to the Philippines on December 18, 2012, where he was diagnosed by company-designated physicians with "Diabetes Mellitus and Ureterolithiasis" and was thereafter advised to undergo monitoring and check-up for the next several months until August 31, 2013, a span of 260 days.

                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 presumption.

                In Zonio v. 88 Aces Maritime Services, the Court ruled in favor of the compensability of "Diabetes Mellitus" that afflicted the seafarer, thus: As earlier stated, respondents herein failed to adduce any contrary medical findings from the company-designated physician to show that Apolinario's illness was not caused or aggravated by his working conditions on board the vessel. There was also no showing that Apolinario is predisposed to the illness by reason of genetics, obesity or old age. Such being the case, this Court considers that the stress and strains he was exposed to on board contributed, even to a small degree, to the development of his disease. Inasmuch as, compensability is the entitlement to receive disability compensation upon a showing that a seafarer's work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, We find Apolinario's disease as compensable at bar.

                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, 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.

                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.

                In Magat v. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., the Court ruled that petitioner Alfredo Magat was entitled to permanent disability benefits when, after passing his PEME, he developed a heart ailment. Although nothing in the records showed that Magat contracted his illness aboard M/T North Star, the fact that petitioner passed his PEME without any finding that he had a preexisting heart ailment before boarding the vessel strongly indicates that such illness developed while he was on board the same vessel.

                Here, petitioner, too, passed his PEME prior to embarking on his duties and thereafter developed "Diabetes Mellitus" complicated with "Ureterolithiasis." This clearly creates the legal presumption that petitioner's illnesses are work-related. Respondents, however, were unable to overcome such presumption in favor of petitioner, thus, his illnesses are deemed work-related and compensable.