ASG Law

Tag: Medical Abandonment

  • Seafarer Disability Claims: Understanding Medical Abandonment and Its Consequences in the Philippines

    Medical Abandonment in Seafarer Disability Claims: A Critical Factor

    G.R. No. 244724, October 23, 2023

    Imagine a seafarer injured at sea, undergoing treatment, and then suddenly stopping, failing to attend scheduled medical re-evaluations. This scenario highlights the concept of ‘medical abandonment’ and its significant impact on disability claims under Philippine law. The Supreme Court, in the case of Roque T. Tabaosares v. Barko International, Inc., clarified the duties of seafarers undergoing medical treatment and the consequences of failing to comply with the prescribed medical regime. This case serves as a crucial reminder for both seafarers and employers regarding their responsibilities in disability claims.

    The Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Claims

    Seafarer disability claims in the Philippines are governed by a combination of laws, contracts, and medical findings. Key legal bases include Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code, as amended, and Section 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. Contractual frameworks are established through the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration – Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), if any, and individual employment agreements.

    The POEA-SEC, being a labor contract imbued with public interest, is liberally construed in favor of the seafarer. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this principle must be balanced with the need for fairness and adherence to established rules and procedures. The rights of management are also respected, and the courts do not favor labor when the employee is at fault.

    A critical aspect of these claims is the role of the company-designated physician. The Supreme Court has set clear guidelines on the timelines for medical assessments. In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., the Court summarized these rules:

    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 him;
    2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;
    3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his 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 his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    The 240-day rule is significant because it allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of the seafarer’s condition, especially when further treatment or rehabilitation is needed. However, this extension hinges on the seafarer’s cooperation and adherence to the prescribed medical treatment.

    The Tabaosares Case: A Story of Missed Opportunities

    Roque T. Tabaosares, a No. 1 oiler, sustained an injury on board a vessel. He was medically repatriated and underwent treatment with a company-designated physician. After initial treatment, he was given an interim disability assessment of Grade 11. He completed several physical therapy sessions, but ultimately, he failed to attend a scheduled re-evaluation, despite the company’s offer to shoulder his travel expenses. As the Court noted:

    [H]e, however, failed to heed, despite the company shouldering his plane ticket, and refused to take its calls. Thus, the Court finds petitioner guilty of medical abandonment.

    Tabaosares then sought the opinion of his own physician, who declared him unfit to work. However, because he failed to complete his treatment with the company-designated physician, the Supreme Court ruled against his claim for total and permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized that:

    [I]t is but the seafarer’s duty to comply with the medical treatment as provided by the company-designated physician; otherwise, a sick or injured seafarer who abandons his or her treatment stands to forfeit his or her right to claim disability benefits.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key procedural steps:

    • Tabaosares was injured on March 24, 2014 and repatriated on March 28, 2014.
    • He underwent treatment with the company-designated physician, including multiple physical therapy sessions.
    • On July 8, 2014, the company-designated physician gave an interim disability assessment of Grade 11.
    • He failed to attend a scheduled re-evaluation on November 18, 2014, despite the company’s efforts to facilitate his attendance.
    • He then consulted his own physician and filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits.

    The Court ultimately denied Tabaosares’ claim for total and permanent disability, finding him guilty of medical abandonment. He was, however, entitled to sickness benefit and medical allowance including the differential sickness allowance that was offered during the grievance meeting.

    Practical Implications: Responsibilities and Rights

    This ruling underscores the importance of seafarers actively participating in their medical treatment and adhering to the directives of the company-designated physician. Failure to do so can have severe consequences on their disability claims. This case also highlights the need for clear communication and documentation throughout the treatment process. It is not enough that the seafarer failed to attend the check-up; the company must also provide evidence of proper notification.

    Here are key lessons from this case:

    • Complete Medical Treatment: Seafarers must diligently attend all scheduled medical appointments and comply with the prescribed treatment plan.
    • Communicate Concerns: If a seafarer has concerns about the treatment or faces challenges in attending appointments, they should communicate these concerns to the company promptly.
    • Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all medical appointments, treatments, and communications with the company and medical professionals.

    Hypothetical Example: A seafarer is required to undergo physical therapy in Manila but lives in a remote province. If the seafarer fails to attend his treatment due to financial constraint, he must inform the company and request support. Should he fail to do this, that will be considered medical abandonment. If the seafarer properly requested support, the company is duty-bound to reimburse the costs. In both situation, the seafarer must provide proof of expenses.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is considered medical abandonment?
    A: Medical abandonment occurs when a seafarer fails to complete their medical treatment as prescribed by the company-designated physician, preventing a final assessment of their condition.

    Q: What are the consequences of medical abandonment?
    A: A seafarer who abandons their medical treatment may forfeit their right to claim disability benefits.

    Q: What is the 120/240-day rule?
    A: The company-designated physician has 120 days to issue a final medical assessment. This period can be extended to 240 days if justified by the need for further treatment.

    Q: Can a seafarer consult their own doctor?
    A: Yes, a seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion, but this right is best exercised after the company-designated physician has issued a definite declaration of their condition.

    Q: What should a seafarer do if they have difficulty attending medical appointments?
    A: Communicate the challenges to the company and request assistance. Document all communications and efforts to comply with the treatment plan.

    Q: What happens if the company-designated physician fails to give an assessment within 240 days?
    A: If, without justifiable reason, the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within the extended 240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is deemed permanent and total.

    Q: Is financial incapacity a valid excuse for not attending check-ups?
    A: While it can be, it must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, especially if the company has been providing sickness allowance.

    ASG Law specializes in maritime law and seafarer disability claims. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Abandonment of Medical Treatment: Impact on Seafarer Disability Claims

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that a seafarer who fails to attend scheduled medical check-ups during the treatment period may forfeit their right to claim full disability benefits. This decision emphasizes the seafarer’s responsibility to comply with mandatory reporting requirements as part of their employment contract. It provides clarity on the obligations of both seafarers and employers in the context of disability claims under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

    Broken Appointments, Broken Benefits: When a Seafarer’s Missed Check-Up Impacts Disability Claims

    The case of Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Allan N. Tena-e revolves around a seafarer, Allan N. Tena-e, who sustained a shoulder injury while working on board a vessel. After being medically repatriated to the Philippines, he underwent treatment with company-designated physicians. However, he failed to attend a scheduled re-evaluation appointment, leading the company to argue that he had abandoned his treatment and forfeited his right to claim full disability benefits. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether Allan’s failure to attend the appointment justified the denial of his claim for permanent total disability benefits.

    The entitlement of a seafarer to disability benefits is governed by the POEA-SEC, which outlines the responsibilities of both the employer and the employee. Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC details the compensation and benefits for injury or illness. Crucially, it states:

    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 within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

    This provision places a clear obligation on the seafarer to actively participate in their medical treatment by attending scheduled appointments. Failure to do so can have significant consequences on their ability to claim benefits.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, highlighted the importance of the company-designated physician’s assessment in determining the extent of a seafarer’s disability. Citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, the Court reiterated the rules governing claims for total and permanent disability benefits:

    In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:

    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 him;
    2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;
    3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his 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
    4. burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
    5. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    In this case, the Court found that the company-designated physician had not issued a final and definitive assessment of Allan’s disability within the 240-day period. However, the Court also noted that this failure was directly attributable to Allan’s failure to attend his scheduled re-evaluation appointment. The Court emphasized that it was Allan’s duty to report for his regular check-ups, and his failure to do so prevented the company-designated physician from completing the assessment.

    The Court distinguished this case from situations where the company-designated physician fails to issue an assessment without justification. In those cases, the seafarer’s disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law. However, when the seafarer’s own actions prevent the physician from making an assessment, the seafarer cannot claim the benefit of this rule.

    Furthermore, the Court gave greater weight to the medical reports of the company-designated physicians over those of Allan’s personal physicians. The Court reasoned that the company-designated physicians had a more comprehensive understanding of Allan’s condition, having closely monitored and treated him over a longer period. The reports from Allan’s personal physicians, on the other hand, were based on a single examination and lacked the depth of analysis provided by the company doctors.

    The Court ultimately ruled that Allan was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits. However, he was entitled to disability benefits equivalent to Grade 12 under the POEA-SEC, as reflected in the last report by the company-designated physician. The Court also deleted the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the company had not acted in bad faith.

    This ruling reinforces the principle that seafarers have a responsibility to actively participate in their medical treatment and comply with the requirements of the POEA-SEC. Failure to do so can have a detrimental impact on their ability to claim disability benefits. This case also underscores the importance of the company-designated physician’s assessment in determining the extent of a seafarer’s disability, and the need for seafarers to cooperate with the company’s medical team.

    The Supreme Court, in the case of Lerona v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., further elaborated on the duty of a seafarer in completing medical treatment:

    A seafarer is duty-bound to complete his medical treatment until declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability rating by the company-designated physician.

    This statement emphasizes the continuous obligation of the seafarer to adhere to the prescribed medical regimen until a final determination of their fitness or disability is made by the designated medical professional. This continuous engagement is crucial for accurate assessment and appropriate compensation.

    In conclusion, this case highlights the delicate balance between the rights and responsibilities of seafarers and their employers. While the law aims to protect seafarers who suffer work-related injuries, it also requires them to actively participate in their treatment and comply with the requirements of the POEA-SEC. A seafarer’s failure to fulfill these obligations can have significant consequences on their ability to claim disability benefits. The ruling underscores the necessity for clear communication and cooperation between seafarers, employers, and company-designated physicians to ensure fair and just outcomes in disability claims.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Allan N. Tena-e, was entitled to permanent total disability benefits despite failing to attend a scheduled medical re-evaluation appointment with the company-designated physician. The court needed to determine if this absence constituted abandonment of treatment.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The POEA-SEC stands for the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract. It is a standard employment contract that governs the overseas employment of Filipino seafarers, outlining the terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation and benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition, providing treatment, and issuing a final assessment of their disability. Their assessment is crucial in determining the seafarer’s eligibility for disability benefits and the extent of those benefits.
    What is the 120/240-day rule? The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which the company-designated physician must issue a final assessment of the seafarer’s disability. Initially, the physician has 120 days, but this can be extended to 240 days if further treatment is required and justified.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to issue an assessment within the 120/240-day period? If the company-designated physician fails to issue a final assessment within the 120/240-day period without justifiable reason, the seafarer’s disability is generally deemed permanent and total. However, this rule does not apply if the seafarer’s own actions prevent the physician from making an assessment.
    What is medical abandonment in the context of seafarer disability claims? Medical abandonment occurs when a seafarer fails to comply with their medical treatment plan or fails to attend scheduled appointments with the company-designated physician. This can result in the forfeiture of their right to claim disability benefits.
    Can a seafarer consult their own physician? Yes, a seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion from their own physician. However, the assessment of the company-designated physician generally carries more weight, especially if they have closely monitored and treated the seafarer over a longer period.
    What are the implications of this ruling for seafarers? This ruling emphasizes the importance of seafarers actively participating in their medical treatment and complying with the requirements of the POEA-SEC. They must attend scheduled appointments and follow the advice of the company-designated physician to avoid forfeiting their right to claim disability benefits.

    This decision serves as a reminder for seafarers to prioritize their health and diligently follow the prescribed medical treatment plans to ensure their rights are protected. It is a testament that the scales of justice are balanced between the rights of the employee and the duties that goes with it. Only by ensuring the continuous performance of the latter can one be rewarded with the former.

    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: Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Allan N. Tena-e, G.R. No. 234365, July 06, 2022

  • Seafarer’s Disability Claim: Premature Filing and Abandonment of Treatment

    In Crown Shipping Services vs. John P. Cervas, the Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer who prematurely files a disability claim and abandons medical treatment with the company-designated physician is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed periods for medical assessment and treatment, as outlined in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This decision underscores the seafarer’s duty to comply with the company’s medical protocols to properly determine the extent of their disability and eligibility for compensation, balancing the rights and obligations of both the employer and the employee in maritime employment.

    High Seas Injury: Was the Seafarer’s Claim Shipshape?

    The case revolves around John P. Cervas, an Able Seaman employed by Carisbrooke Shipping Ltd. through its local manning agent, Crown Shipping Services. On December 20, 2012, Cervas sustained a left leg injury during a lifeboat drill amidst rough seas. Upon repatriation, he was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. Carlos Lagman, who diagnosed him with a fibular fracture and declared him unfit to work. Cervas attended medical treatments, and although the company doctor confirmed that the bone was growing, he still felt some tenderness. However, Cervas discontinued treatment and filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits. This led to a legal battle concerning the timeliness of his claim and the impact of his decision to halt medical treatment before a final assessment could be made.

    The central legal question is whether Cervas was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering he prematurely filed his claim before the 120-day period for the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment had lapsed, and given that he discontinued medical treatment. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed Cervas’ complaint, citing his premature filing and abandonment of treatment. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, granting Cervas total permanent disability benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, prompting the employer to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized that while labor tribunals possess expertise in resolving factual issues, the Court may re-examine facts in cases of conflicting findings. The Court underscored that for an injury and resulting disability to be compensable, they must necessarily result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court agreed that Cervas’ injury was sustained while performing his duties as a seaman. Therefore, in general, this injury should be compensable.

    The Court then clarified the responsibilities and timelines outlined in Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. This section stipulates that the company-designated physician has 120 days from repatriation to provide a definitive assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or degree of disability. This period may be extended to a maximum of 240 days if further medical attention is required, with the employer having the right to declare the existence of a permanent partial or total disability within this extended period.

    The Court outlined four critical rules regarding the company-designated physician’s duty:

    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 him;

    2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;

    3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his 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 his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    In this case, the Court found that Cervas filed his claim prematurely, on the 99th day after consulting the company-designated physician, well before the 120-day assessment period had expired. By discontinuing treatment due to financial constraints, Cervas prevented the physician from completing the assessment. The Court emphasized that under Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC, a seafarer’s intentional breach of duties, such as abandoning medical treatment, can result in the forfeiture of disability benefits.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the seafarer’s duty to comply with the medical treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician. This is because the company-designated physician needs all the help, data, and medical visits to be able to make a final, definitive assessment. Cervas abandoned the process before the 120-day period expired. However, the Court also noted that a seafarer’s financial incapacity to continue treatment may be a valid justification, provided it is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In this instance, Cervas failed to adequately demonstrate his financial incapacity, especially considering the availability of sickness allowance and potential reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses under the POEA-SEC.

    While the Court acknowledged the importance of a seafarer’s inability to work for more than 120 days in determining entitlement to permanent disability benefits, it stressed that this determination must still occur within the established 120/240-day framework. Cervas failed to provide substantial proof that his injury rendered him unable to work for more than 120 days, nor did he present medical reports from independent physicians to support his claim of permanent disability. Consequently, the Court found Cervas’ claim for total and permanent disability benefits unsubstantiated.

    Despite ruling against the disability claim, the Supreme Court recognized Cervas’s plight and the injury he sustained during his employment. In a gesture of social and compassionate justice, the Court awarded Cervas P200,000.00 as financial assistance. This decision reflects the Court’s attempt to balance the interests of both the employer and the worker, acknowledging the seafarer’s injury while upholding the importance of adhering to contractual and procedural requirements.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits after prematurely filing a claim and abandoning medical treatment with the company-designated physician.
    What is the 120/240-day rule for seafarer disability claims? The company-designated physician has 120 days from the seafarer’s repatriation to issue a final assessment. This period can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is needed.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within the 120/240-day period? If no assessment is provided within the 120-day period without justification, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. If justified, the period extends to 240 days; failure to assess within this extended period also results in a permanent and total disability.
    What constitutes medical abandonment by a seafarer? Medical abandonment occurs when a seafarer fails to complete their medical treatment within the 240-day period, preventing the company physician from issuing a final assessment.
    What is the effect of medical abandonment on a seafarer’s disability claim? Medical abandonment can lead to the forfeiture of the seafarer’s right to claim disability benefits, as it is considered an intentional breach of their duties.
    What kind of proof is needed if a seafarer claims financial incapacity to continue treatment? A seafarer must provide clear and convincing evidence of financial incapacity, especially if the manning agency has been providing sickness allowance during the treatment period.
    Are seafarers entitled to reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses during treatment? Yes, if the treatment is on an out-patient basis, the company should approve the mode of transportation and accommodation, and the seafarer is entitled to reimbursement upon liquidation and submission of receipts.
    What was the outcome of this case? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, denying the seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits but awarding him P200,000.00 as financial assistance.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Crown Shipping Services vs. John P. Cervas highlights the importance of adhering to the established procedures and timelines for seafarer disability claims. While the Court acknowledged the seafarer’s injury, it emphasized the need for compliance with medical treatment and assessment protocols to ensure a fair and accurate determination of disability benefits.

    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: Crown Shipping Services vs. John P. Cervas, G.R. No. 214290, July 06, 2021

  • Navigating Disability Benefits: The Impact of Medical Abandonment on Seafarers’ Claims

    The Importance of Regular Medical Compliance for Seafarers Seeking Disability Benefits

    Josue A. Antolino v. Hanseatic Shipping Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 245917, February 26, 2020

    Imagine a seafarer, far from home, who suffers a debilitating injury while serving on a vessel. Their hope for recovery and financial support hinges on the medical treatment they receive upon returning home. But what happens when that seafarer, due to financial constraints or other reasons, fails to attend scheduled medical check-ups? The case of Josue A. Antolino sheds light on this critical issue, highlighting the consequences of medical abandonment on a seafarer’s right to claim disability benefits.

    Josue Antolino, a Filipino seafarer, suffered an injury while working aboard a ship. After being medically repatriated, he was supposed to undergo regular medical examinations to assess his disability. However, Antolino missed a crucial check-up, claiming financial incapacity. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that his failure to attend the examination constituted medical abandonment, resulting in the forfeiture of his disability benefits. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to medical obligations under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

    Understanding the Legal Framework

    The legal landscape governing seafarers’ rights to disability benefits is primarily defined by the POEA-SEC. This contract, which is imbued with public interest, aims to protect seafarers by ensuring they receive proper medical attention and compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses. Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC is particularly relevant, stating: “In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.”

    This provision emphasizes the seafarer’s obligation to engage actively in their medical treatment. The term “medical abandonment” refers to a seafarer’s failure to attend scheduled medical examinations, which can lead to the forfeiture of disability benefits. The law balances the seafarer’s rights with their responsibilities, ensuring that both parties uphold their end of the contract.

    For example, consider a seafarer who suffers a back injury and is advised to attend weekly physiotherapy sessions. If they miss these sessions without a valid reason, they risk losing their claim to disability benefits, even if the injury is severe.

    The Journey of Josue Antolino

    Josue Antolino’s story began when he was hired as a bosun on the M/V Hansa Fresenburg. On June 5, 2015, while preparing the gangway net, he fell and injured his left elbow. Upon arriving in Singapore, he sought medical treatment, which revealed a calcified fleck in his elbow. He was subsequently medically repatriated to the Philippines.

    Upon his return, Antolino reported to Hanseatic Shipping Phils. Inc., who referred him to their designated medical provider. He underwent physiotherapy at the Medical Center Manila and was paid a sickness allowance. However, after returning to his home province in Antique, he was scheduled for a follow-up examination in Manila on November 4, 2015. Antolino requested Hanseatic to cover his travel expenses, but the company only offered reimbursement upon arrival, which he found insufficient. Consequently, he missed the examination.

    Three months later, on January 22, 2016, Antolino finally appeared at the clinic. He was asked to sign a fit-to-work document but refused, citing ongoing pain. He then sought a second opinion from another doctor, who declared him unfit for sea duty. Antolino’s request for a third medical opinion was ignored, leading him to file a complaint for disability benefits.

    The Labor Arbiter initially awarded Antolino total and permanent disability benefits, citing his financial incapacity as a valid reason for missing the examination. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding that Antolino had abandoned his treatment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision, stating:

    “The Court finds that Antolino had unjustifiably abandoned his medical treatment, resulting in the forfeiture of his disability benefits.”

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Antolino’s failure to substantiate his claim of financial incapacity, despite receiving sickness allowance, weakened his case. They noted:

    “If he sincerely cared for the rehabilitation of his injury, he should have taken it upon himself to book his flight in advance upon receipt of his allowance.”

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    The Antolino case serves as a cautionary tale for seafarers and employers alike. Seafarers must understand that their right to disability benefits is contingent upon their active participation in medical treatment. Missing scheduled examinations without valid justification can lead to the forfeiture of these benefits.

    For employers, the ruling reinforces the importance of providing clear communication and support to injured seafarers. While they are obligated to offer medical attention and sickness allowances, they must also ensure that seafarers understand the consequences of non-compliance with medical obligations.

    Key Lessons:

    • Seafarers should prioritize attending all scheduled medical examinations, even if it requires personal financial planning or seeking assistance from their employer.
    • Employers must clearly communicate the dates and importance of medical check-ups, as well as the potential consequences of missing them.
    • Both parties should document all communications and transactions related to medical treatment and financial support to avoid disputes.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is medical abandonment in the context of seafarers?

    Medical abandonment occurs when a seafarer fails to attend scheduled medical examinations as required by the POEA-SEC, potentially leading to the forfeiture of disability benefits.

    Can financial incapacity justify missing a medical examination?

    Financial incapacity may be a valid reason, but it must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence, as seen in the Antolino case.

    What should a seafarer do if they cannot afford to travel for a medical check-up?

    Seafarers should communicate their financial situation to their employer and request assistance. If possible, they should plan ahead and use their sickness allowance to cover travel expenses.

    What are the responsibilities of the employer in providing medical treatment to seafarers?

    Employers must provide medical attention, sickness allowances, and clear communication about scheduled examinations. They should also reimburse travel expenses as agreed upon.

    How can seafarers ensure they receive their rightful disability benefits?

    Seafarers should diligently follow all medical advice, attend all scheduled examinations, and maintain open communication with their employer regarding their treatment and financial needs.

    ASG Law specializes in maritime and labor law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Seafarer’s Disability Claim Denied: Consequences of Concealing Pre-Existing Conditions and Abandoning Treatment

    We deny the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits due to fraudulent misrepresentation and medical abandonment, as provided under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (2000 POEA-SEC). This case emphasizes the importance of honesty during pre-employment medical examinations and adherence to prescribed medical treatments for seafarers seeking disability benefits.

    The Case of the Hidden Hypertension: When a Seafarer’s Honesty Impacts His Benefits

    This case revolves around Danilo A. Lerona, a seafarer employed by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. He sought disability benefits after experiencing health issues during his employment. However, his claim was contested due to his failure to disclose a pre-existing condition and his premature termination of medical treatment. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the shipping company, denying Lerona’s claim and highlighting the critical importance of transparency and adherence to medical protocols in maritime employment.

    The central issue was whether Lerona was entitled to disability benefits, considering his concealment of hypertension during his pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and his subsequent abandonment of the medical treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician. The 2000 POEA-SEC governs the employment of Filipino seafarers and outlines the conditions under which disability benefits can be claimed. Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC specifically addresses the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation, stating:

    E. A seafarer who knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall disqualify him from any compensation and benefits. This may also be a valid ground for termination of employment and imposition of the appropriate administrative and legal sanctions.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Lerona’s failure to disclose his hypertension, for which he had been taking medication for two years, constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. This act, according to the Court, was a direct violation of the POEA-SEC and a valid reason to deny his claim. The Court noted that Lerona had undergone multiple PEMEs prior to his deployments, providing him with ample opportunity to disclose his condition. His repeated concealment undermined his claim of good faith.

    Even without the fraudulent misrepresentation, Lerona’s claim faced another significant hurdle: his failure to complete the prescribed medical treatment. The company-designated physician had scheduled a follow-up appointment for medical clearance, which Lerona failed to attend. The Supreme Court has consistently held that seafarers must comply with their duty to complete medical treatment until they are declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability rating. This principle is rooted in Section 20(D) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, which states:

    [N]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties. x x x

    By abandoning his treatment, Lerona prevented the company-designated physician from making a final assessment of his condition, effectively breaching his duties under the POEA-SEC. The Court cited the case of *C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta*, where it defined medical abandonment as “when he fails to complete his treatment before the lapse of the 240-day period, which prevents the company physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his disability.”

    The Court also addressed Lerona’s argument that he was entitled to benefits because he was unable to work for more than 120 days. The Court clarified that the 240-day rule applies in cases filed after October 6, 2008, allowing the company-designated physician a longer period to assess the seafarer’s condition. This extended period is crucial for proper diagnosis and treatment, ensuring a fair and accurate evaluation of the seafarer’s fitness for duty. In this instance, Lerona filed the case before the 240-day period had lapsed, and without a final assessment from the company doctor.

    Furthermore, the court addressed the relevance of the PEME and its bearing on disability claims. While a “fit to work” declaration in a PEME suggests a seafarer’s suitability for duty at the time of the examination, it does not guarantee the absence of pre-existing conditions. The Supreme Court in *Status Maritime Corporation v. Spouses Delalamon*, clarified that “[t]he PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition; it merely determines whether one is ‘fit to work’ at sea or ‘fit for sea service’ and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant.”

    In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the responsibilities of seafarers under the POEA-SEC. Honesty during the PEME and adherence to prescribed medical treatments are crucial for a successful disability claim. Failure to meet these obligations can result in the denial of benefits, regardless of the seafarer’s actual medical condition. This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and cooperation between seafarers and their employers in matters of health and disability.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to disability benefits, considering his concealment of a pre-existing condition (hypertension) and his abandonment of medical treatment.
    What is fraudulent misrepresentation in the context of seafarer employment? Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when a seafarer knowingly conceals a past medical condition during the pre-employment medical examination. This disqualifies them from receiving disability benefits under the 2000 POEA-SEC.
    What is medical abandonment, and how does it affect a seafarer’s disability claim? Medical abandonment happens when a seafarer fails to complete their medical treatment, preventing the company physician from making a final assessment. It is a breach of duty that can lead to the denial of disability benefits.
    What is the significance of the pre-employment medical examination (PEME)? The PEME is a summary examination to determine if a seafarer is fit to work at sea, but it is not a comprehensive assessment of their overall health. It does not excuse the seafarer’s responsibility to disclose pre-existing conditions.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician in disability claims? The company-designated physician is primarily responsible for assessing the seafarer’s fitness for work or determining their disability within a specified period. Their assessment is crucial in determining eligibility for disability benefits.
    What is the 120/240-day rule in seafarer disability cases? The company doctor has 120 days to assess the seafarer’s condition or 240 days if further treatment is required. The 240-day rule applies in cases filed after October 6, 2008, allowing the company-designated physician a longer period to assess the seafarer’s condition.
    What happens if a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment? Under Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, a seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion from another doctor if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment.
    What are the requirements for hypertension to be considered a compensable occupational disease under the 2000 POEA-SEC? Under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, hypertension is compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability and is substantiated by medical reports.

    This case highlights the need for seafarers to be forthright about their medical history and to adhere to the prescribed treatment plans. Failing to do so can have significant consequences for their ability to claim disability benefits.

    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: DANILO A. LERONA v. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC., G.R. No. 210955, August 14, 2019

  • Medical Abandonment in Seafarer Disability Claims: Upholding Treatment Obligations

    The Supreme Court’s decision in C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta clarifies the responsibilities of seafarers to adhere to medical treatments prescribed by company-designated physicians. It emphasizes that a seafarer’s failure to complete a prescribed medical treatment within the 240-day period constitutes medical abandonment, potentially impacting their claim for disability benefits. This ruling reinforces the importance of seafarers fulfilling their contractual obligations to undergo medical evaluations and treatments, while affirming the employer’s right to assess the seafarer’s condition within the specified timeframe. Ultimately, the case underscores the need for seafarers to actively participate in their medical care to ensure the validity of their disability claims.

    When Treatment Becomes a Tug-of-War: Examining a Seafarer’s Duty to Medical Care

    This case revolves around Noel N. Orbeta, a seafarer employed as an Able Seaman by C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. and Gulf Energy Maritime. On January 3, 2010, while working, Orbeta slipped and fell on his back, resulting in an injury. After complaining of pain, he was medically repatriated and attended to by a company-designated physician. The physician initially suspected a compression fracture but later diagnosed him with “lumbosacral muscular spasm with mild spondylosis L3-L4,” assigning a Grade 10 partial disability rating. A bone scan was scheduled, but Orbeta instead consulted an independent physician, Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who issued a “Disability Report” stating Orbeta was permanently disabled and unfit for sea duty.

    The core legal question in this case is whether Orbeta is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, considering he discontinued treatment with the company-designated physician and sought an independent medical opinion. Petitioners argued that Orbeta abandoned his treatment, violating the POEA-SEC, while the respondent contended his condition warranted a permanent total disability rating based on the independent physician’s assessment. This scenario highlights the tension between a seafarer’s right to seek independent medical advice and the contractual obligations to undergo treatment under the company’s designated physician.

    The Labor Arbiter initially granted disability benefits based on a Grade 6 disability. The NLRC modified the decision, awarding total and permanent disability benefits but deleting attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The Supreme Court took a different stance. It partially granted the petition, emphasizing the seafarer’s obligation to complete treatment with the company-designated physician.

    The Supreme Court leaned on the principle that disability is only considered permanent and total when declared by the company-designated physician or, if there is no such declaration, after the lapse of 120 or 240 days while the employee remains unable to work. The Court clarified that the mere passage of the 120-day period does not automatically grant entitlement to permanent total disability benefits. The court cited Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Jaleco, reiterating that if further medical attention is needed beyond the initial 120 days, the temporary total disability period may be extended up to 240 days.

    In this case, Orbeta underwent treatment with the company-designated physician for 126 days. After his partial diagnosis, he failed to return for the scheduled bone scan. Instead, he sought an independent medical opinion, which also recommended further tests. “[T]o determine the exact problem on his lumbar spine,” as stated in the Disability Report. The Court found that Orbeta’s decision to file a labor complaint prematurely was a legal misstep. Both the company-designated physician and Dr. Escutin agreed that the bone scan was crucial to properly ascertain his condition. Consequently, the Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner’s assertion that Orbeta abandoned his medical treatment, precluding a proper assessment of his condition within the 240-day period allowed under the POEA contract.

    The Court highlighted the case of New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, where a seafarer was deemed to have abandoned medical treatment for failing to complete it within the 240-day period, thus preventing the company physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his disability. Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC stipulates that no compensation is payable if the seafarer’s injury or disability results from willful acts or intentional breach of duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that a seafarer is obligated to complete medical treatment until a declaration of fitness or a permanent disability grading is issued. In Orbeta’s case, his failure to pursue further treatment and his premature filing of the disability claim hindered a comprehensive evaluation of his medical condition.

    The Court recognized Orbeta’s potential belief that the initial diagnosis was the final assessment, prompting him to seek an independent opinion and file the case. The court acknowledged the employee’s disadvantage in the employment relationship, noting that his distrust of the petitioners might not be entirely unwarranted. Despite Orbeta’s premature actions, the Court acknowledged his entitlement to compensation commensurate with his injury, highlighting that his work-related condition required further medical care that could have been resolved had he followed the prescribed procedures.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to reinstate and affirm the Labor Arbiter’s original decision. This effectively granted Orbeta disability benefits equivalent to a Grade 6 disability, along with attorney’s fees. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the seafarer’s duty to comply with medical treatments prescribed by the company-designated physician with the right to receive fair compensation for work-related injuries. The case serves as a reminder that while seafarers are entitled to seek independent medical opinions, they cannot abandon the prescribed treatment without potentially jeopardizing their claims for disability benefits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to permanent total disability benefits despite abandoning treatment with the company-designated physician and prematurely filing a labor complaint.
    What is the significance of the 240-day period? The 240-day period is the maximum timeframe within which a company-designated physician can assess a seafarer’s medical condition and determine their fitness to work or assign a disability grading.
    What does “medical abandonment” mean in this context? Medical abandonment refers to a seafarer’s failure to complete the medical treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician within the allotted timeframe, hindering a proper assessment of their condition.
    Can a seafarer seek an independent medical opinion? Yes, a seafarer can seek an independent medical opinion, but it doesn’t absolve them from the obligation to undergo treatment with the company-designated physician.
    What happens if the company doctor and the seafarer’s doctor disagree? The POEA-SEC provides a mechanism for a third doctor to be jointly agreed upon by the employer and seafarer, whose decision will be final and binding on both parties.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The POEA-SEC stands for the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, which governs the employment terms and conditions of Filipino seafarers.
    What was the final ruling in this case? The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, awarding the seafarer disability benefits equivalent to a Grade 6 disability, along with attorney’s fees, based on the initial injury assessment.
    Why was the seafarer not awarded total and permanent disability? The seafarer was not awarded total and permanent disability because he prematurely filed his claim and abandoned the prescribed medical treatment, preventing a complete and accurate assessment of his condition.

    The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the importance of adhering to medical treatment protocols in seafarer disability claims. This ruling underscores the need for seafarers to fulfill their contractual obligations while seeking fair compensation for work-related injuries, establishing a balance between employee rights and employer responsibilities in maritime employment.

    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: C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. v. ORBETA, G.R. No. 211111, September 25, 2017

  • Premature Filing Bars Seafarer’s Disability Claim: Adherence to POEA-SEC Guidelines

    The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits was premature because it was filed before the company-designated physician had the chance to fully assess his condition within the prescribed 240-day period, as mandated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC, including allowing the company-designated physician to conduct a thorough evaluation and the seafarer’s duty to continue medical treatment. This decision highlights the necessity for seafarers to comply with the established medical evaluation process before seeking disability benefits, ensuring a fair and accurate assessment of their condition.

    When Timing is Everything: Did the Seafarer Jump the Gun on His Disability Claim?

    This case revolves around Edwinito V. Quillao, a fitter who worked for Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. (WMS) and Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd. (WSL). After experiencing neck and back pain during his employment, Quillao sought disability benefits. The central issue is whether Quillao prematurely filed his claim, thus jeopardizing his entitlement to those benefits.

    The factual backdrop reveals that Quillao was hired as a fitter for a nine-month period. During his time on board, he began experiencing physical discomfort, leading to a diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, thoracic and lumbar spondylosis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and trigger finger upon his repatriation. He underwent surgery and physical therapy (PT) sessions. However, before the company-designated physician could issue a final assessment within the 240-day period, Quillao filed a complaint for disability benefits. This action became the crux of the legal dispute, as WMS and WSL argued that Quillao’s claim was premature due to the ongoing medical evaluation.

    The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) initially ruled in favor of Quillao, awarding him disability benefits and attorney’s fees. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision with a slight modification in the amount awarded. The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions, siding with WMS and WSL.

    The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the guidelines set forth in the POEA-SEC. These guidelines stipulate a specific process for assessing a seafarer’s medical condition and determining their eligibility for disability benefits. Central to this process is the role of the company-designated physician, who is tasked with evaluating the seafarer’s health and issuing a final assessment within a defined timeframe.

    The Supreme Court underscored that the 240-day rule, applicable to complaints filed after October 6, 2008, should have been followed in Quillao’s case. This rule allows the company-designated physician up to 240 days from the seafarer’s repatriation to conduct a thorough medical evaluation and determine the extent of the seafarer’s disability or fitness to work. The Court found that Quillao filed his complaint prematurely, while he was still undergoing treatment and before the company-designated physician had the opportunity to complete their assessment.

    Furthermore, the Court noted that Quillao had been advised to consult an orthopedic specialist but instead chose to file a complaint for disability benefits. This failure to follow through with the recommended medical advice was seen as a breach of his duty to cooperate with the medical evaluation process. The Supreme Court referenced the case of C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Obligado, reiterating the principle that a cause of action for disability benefits arises only after the company-designated physician has issued an assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition.

    The Court also addressed the issue of medical abandonment, highlighting that Quillao stopped reporting to the company-designated physician for treatment, which further hampered the assessment process. The Supreme Court cited Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC, which states that no compensation shall be payable if the seafarer’s disability results from an intentional breach of their duties. Quillao’s failure to continue his medical treatment was considered a breach of his duty to cooperate with the company-designated physician, ultimately affecting his eligibility for disability benefits.

    The ruling serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements that must be met before a seafarer can successfully claim disability benefits. By filing his complaint prematurely and failing to continue his medical treatment, Quillao did not comply with the POEA-SEC guidelines, leading to the dismissal of his claim.

    The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedures and allowing the company-designated physician sufficient time to conduct a thorough medical evaluation. It also underscores the seafarer’s responsibility to cooperate with the medical treatment and assessment process.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Edwinito V. Quillao, prematurely filed his claim for disability benefits before the company-designated physician had the opportunity to fully assess his medical condition within the prescribed 240-day period, as required by the POEA-SEC.
    What is the 240-day rule? The 240-day rule allows the company-designated physician up to 240 days from the seafarer’s repatriation to conduct a thorough medical evaluation and determine the extent of the seafarer’s disability or fitness to work. This rule applies to complaints filed after October 6, 2008.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician is responsible for evaluating the seafarer’s health and issuing a final assessment of their medical condition within the prescribed timeframe. Their assessment is crucial in determining the seafarer’s eligibility for disability benefits.
    What happens if a seafarer fails to cooperate with medical treatment? If a seafarer fails to cooperate with medical treatment, it can be considered a breach of their duty, potentially affecting their eligibility for disability benefits. Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC states that no compensation shall be payable if the disability results from an intentional breach of duties.
    What does medical abandonment mean in this context? Medical abandonment refers to the seafarer’s failure to continue with the prescribed medical treatment and consultations, hindering the company-designated physician’s ability to properly assess their condition.
    Why was the seafarer’s claim dismissed in this case? The seafarer’s claim was dismissed because he filed it prematurely, before the company-designated physician could complete the assessment within the 240-day period, and because he failed to continue his medical treatment, hindering the assessment process.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) sets the standard terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels. It outlines the rights and responsibilities of both the seafarer and the employer.
    What should a seafarer do if they experience health problems during their employment? Seafarers should promptly report any health problems to their superiors on board the vessel and seek medical attention as soon as possible. Upon repatriation, they should report to the company-designated physician within three days for diagnosis and treatment.
    What is the significance of the C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Obligado case? The C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Obligado case, G.R. No. 192389, September 23, 2015, reiterates that a cause of action for disability benefits arises only after the company-designated physician has issued an assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition. This case underscores the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the POEA-SEC.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA-SEC when claiming disability benefits. Seafarers must allow the company-designated physician sufficient time to conduct a thorough medical evaluation and cooperate with the prescribed treatment plan. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of their claims, highlighting the need for diligence and compliance with established guidelines to protect their rights and ensure a fair assessment of their medical condition.

    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: WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. VS. QUILLAO, G.R. No. 202885, January 20, 2016