The Supreme Court ruled that if a seafarer promptly reports to the employer after repatriation for medical reasons, the employer is obligated to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician at the employer’s expense. Failure by the employer to provide this medical care allows the seafarer to seek medical treatment elsewhere at the employer’s expense, and any waivers signed without proper consideration are invalid, upholding the seafarer’s right to compensation and benefits.

Medical Neglect at Sea: Can Employers Evade Responsibility for Seafarer Health?

The case of Lorna B. Dionio v. ND Shipping Agency and Allied Services, Inc. revolves around the denial of death benefits to the widow of Gil T. Dionio, Jr., a seafarer who died from prostatic cancer. Gil was medically repatriated due to a urinary tract infection (UTI) and prostate enlargement, conditions he experienced while working aboard the vessel MT Caribbean Tug. Despite reporting to ND Shipping upon his return, the company refused to cover his medical expenses, leading Gil to seek treatment on his own. The central legal question is whether ND Shipping failed in its duty to provide post-repatriation medical care, thus entitling Gil’s widow to death benefits and other compensation.

The heart of the matter lies in the interpretation of Sec. 20(B) (3) of the 2000 Amended POEA-SEC, which outlines the responsibilities of the employer concerning a seafarer’s medical needs. This section mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return. Failing to comply, the seafarer forfeits the right to claim benefits. However, the Supreme Court has recognized exceptions to this rule, particularly when the seafarer is physically incapacitated or when the employer fails to fulfill their duty.

Building on this principle, the Court referenced De Andres v. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., which clarified that a seafarer is not required to submit to a post-employment medical examination if physically incapacitated or if the employer is at fault. The Court emphasized that employers cannot deliberately refuse to refer the seafarer to the company-designated physician to deny the disability claim. Similarly, in Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Remo, the Court held that the absence of post-employment medical examination should not be taken against the seafarer because the employer declined to provide the same pursuant to an invalid quitclaim.

The ruling in Apines v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., et al., further reinforced that the burden is on the employer to prove that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated doctor. This case established that without the assessment of the company-designated doctor, there was nothing for a seafarer’s own physician to contest, rendering the requirement of referral to a third doctor as superfluous. In this case, the Court found that Gil reported to ND Shipping immediately after repatriation, but the company did not refer him to a company-designated physician at their expense.

The email exchange between ND Shipping and the ship owner, K. Arnesen Shipping, clearly indicated that Gil was requesting an extended medical check-up at the ship owner’s expense due to his illness. However, Kjell Arnesen responded that Gil must arrange for his own medical care. This refusal directly contravened Sec. 20(B) (2) of the POEA-SEC, which stipulates that the employer shall shoulder the cost of the seafarer’s medical treatment after repatriation until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of disability is established. The Court underscored that the POEA-SEC is the law between the seafarer and the employer, and its provisions must be respected.

As Gil was denied proper medical attention by ND Shipping, he was forced to seek medical assistance elsewhere at his own expense. He consulted four physicians, each of whom provided consistent medical findings of prostatic cancer. The Court emphasized that absent the company-designated physician’s medical assessment, respondents could only present unsupported allegations regarding Gil’s medical condition. Given the severity of his condition, the medical certificates of Gil’s chosen physicians held greater weight.

Moreover, the Court addressed the disputable presumption that illnesses not listed in Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC are work-related. While this presumption does not signify an automatic grant of compensation, the seafarer must still prove their entitlement to disability benefits. The Court noted that it is sufficient that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his death. Here, Gil was already suffering from UTI and enlargement of the prostate, symptoms of prostate cancer, while on board the vessel.

Given Gil’s age (54 at the time of employment) and the stressful conditions on board the vessel, the Court concluded that the evidence supported the claim that Gil’s disease was work-related. As the employer failed to overcome this disputable presumption by presenting any contradictory medical evidence, the Court found in favor of the petitioner. The Court also deemed the Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim signed by Gil invalid due to the grossly inadequate consideration (P31,200.00) and the lack of evidence that the contents were properly explained to him. Citing City Government of Makati v. Odeña, the Court reiterated that quitclaims with scandalously low consideration cannot bar a worker’s legitimate claim.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the employer, ND Shipping, failed in its duty to provide post-repatriation medical care to the seafarer, Gil T. Dionio, Jr., thus entitling his widow to death benefits and other compensation.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) sets the terms and conditions for Filipino seafarers’ employment, including provisions for medical care and compensation for work-related illnesses or injuries.
What does the POEA-SEC say about medical examinations after repatriation?	The POEA-SEC requires a seafarer to undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of repatriation. Failure to comply generally forfeits the right to claim benefits.
Are there exceptions to the three-day medical examination rule?	Yes, exceptions exist if the seafarer is physically unable to comply or if the employer prevents the seafarer from undergoing the examination.
Who bears the burden of proof in showing that a seafarer was referred to a company doctor?	The employer has the burden of proving that the seafarer was indeed referred to a company-designated physician for post-employment medical examination.
What if the seafarer seeks medical care from their own doctor?	A seafarer can seek medical care from their own doctor if the employer fails to provide proper medical attention after repatriation; this is especially relevant if the company-designated physician’s assessment is absent.
What is a disputable presumption of work-relatedness?	Under the POEA-SEC, illnesses not listed as occupational diseases are disputably presumed to be work-related, meaning the employer must present evidence to overcome this presumption.
When is a quitclaim considered invalid?	A quitclaim is invalid if there was fraud, deceit, or if the consideration is unconscionably low. The court looks into the factual circumstances to determine fairness.
What compensation did the Labor Arbiter initially award?	The Labor Arbiter initially awarded sickness allowance, death benefits, additional compensation for the deceased’s children, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees, totaling Php3,557,598.00.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations to provide adequate medical care for seafarers, particularly after repatriation. The Supreme Court’s decision safeguards seafarers’ rights by emphasizing the employer’s duty to facilitate medical examinations and provide necessary treatment. This ruling ensures that seafarers are not unjustly denied compensation due to technicalities or the employer’s negligence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: LORNA B. DIONIO v. ND SHIPPING AGENCY, G.R. No. 231096, August 15, 2018