Zonio, Jr. vs. 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc.

A seafarer's illness not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A) of the POEA-SEC is disputably presumed work-related under Section 20(B)(4), and the employer bears the burden to overcome this presumption with evidence; an employer's refusal or failure to refer a repatriated seafarer to a company-designated physician for post-employment medical examination constitutes an exception to the mandatory three-day reporting requirement, such that the seafarer's own physician's assessment of permanent total disability prevails in the absence of any contrary company-designated physician certification.

88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of Filipino seafarers for and on behalf of its foreign principal, Khalifa Algosaibi Diving and Marine Services Co. Janet A. Jocson is the president, owner, and manager of 88 Aces. The dispute arises from a seafarer's claim for disability benefits under the 2000 POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which governs the rights and obligations of seafarers and their employers, including the presumption of work-relatedness for unlisted illnesses, the mandatory post-employment medical examination, and the prescriptive period for filing claims.

On February 4, 2010, Apolinario Z. Zonio, Jr. was hired as an ordinary seaman by 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. to board the vessel MV Algosaibi 42, under a six-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$506.15. After passing the required pre-employment medical examination, Apolinario departed Manila on February 26, 2010 and embarked on the vessel in Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia. His duties on board included assisting the able seaman, handling and operating deck gear such as topping, cradling, and housing of booms, aiding the carpenter in repair work, scaling and chipping paint, handling lines in the mooring of the ship, assisting in tying up and letting go of the vessel, and standing as lookout.

After completing his six-month POEA-approved contract in August 2010, Apolinario was not repatriated; he directly entered into a new contract with 88 Aces' foreign principal, Khalifa Algosaibi, which lasted until April 2012. According to Apolinario, while on board the vessel in December 2010, he suddenly experienced dizziness and was sent to As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, where he was found to have high glucose and cholesterol. He was given medicine, advised to observe proper diet and avoid stress, and his condition improved sufficiently for him to continue working. However, in January 2012, the dizziness recurred, accompanied by blurring of vision. On April 2, 2012, he returned to As Salama Hospital and was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia.

Apolinario was repatriated to Manila on April 11, 2012. He alleged that two days later he reported to the office of 88 Aces to collect his unpaid wages and to be referred to the company-designated physician. However, Jocson told him that 88 Aces could not shoulder his medical expenses because his repatriation was due to completion of his contract rather than medical reasons. Apolinario did not insist and continued taking the medicine given by the doctor in Saudi Arabia. He subsequently felt well and believed his illness was cured, but it recurred on August 2, 2013. He consulted Dr. Joseph Glenn Dimatatac, an internal medicine physician, who confirmed the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. On March 17, 2015, Apolinario consulted Dr. Rufo Luna, the Municipal Health Officer of San Jose, who declared him physically unfit to continue work due to hyperglycemia. Apolinario thereafter demanded disability benefits from respondents, but to no avail.

On May 8, 2015, Apolinario filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for disability benefits, attorney's fees, medical fees, sickness allowance, and damages. He had earlier filed a Request for Single Entry Approach (SENA) before the NLRC on March 25, 2015. Respondents countered that the complaint was filed five years after completion of the original contract in August 2010 and that Apolinario failed to comply with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Apolinario's favor, but the NLRC reversed on appeal, giving no weight to medical certificates issued years after repatriation and finding that work-relatedness and a request for post-employment examination were not established. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, holding that Apolinario was no longer covered by the POEA-SEC when found unfit and that he failed to justify non-compliance with the post-employment medical examination.

• Work-Relatedness: Petitioner argued that his illness is disputably presumed work-related under Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, as diabetes mellitus is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A). He maintained that his stress from frequent overtime, lack of sleep, and emotional/psychological strain from being away from his family was a factor in the development of his condition.
• Compensability: Petitioner contended that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting diabetes mellitus, given his strenuous duties on board and exposure to physical, mental, and emotional stress.
• Permanent Total Disability: Petitioner maintained that his disability is permanent and total because he was already incapacitated to resume sea duties for more than 240 days.
• Prescription: Petitioner argued that his cause of action had not prescribed, as he instituted his action within three years from his disembarkation from the vessel on April 11, 2012, having filed a Request for SENA on March 25, 2015.
• Post-Employment Medical Examination: Petitioner averred that he reported to 88 Aces two days after repatriation and requested referral to a company-designated physician, but was denied on the ground that his repatriation was due to contract completion rather than medical reasons.

• Prescription: Respondents contended that the complaint was filed five years after the completion of the six-month POEA-approved contract in August 2010, such that the cause of action had already prescribed for failure to file within the three-year prescriptive period.
• Post-Employment Medical Examination: Respondents claimed that Apolinario failed to comply with the mandatory three-day post-employment medical examination requirement and that he never requested such examination, as attested to in Jocson's affidavit. For this non-compliance, respondents argued he was not entitled to disability benefits or damages.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Whether petitioner's diabetes mellitus is work-related and compensable under the 2000 POEA-SEC.
• Post-Employment Medical Examination: Whether petitioner's failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within three working days from repatriation bars his claim for disability benefits.
• Prescription: Whether petitioner's claim was filed within the three-year prescriptive period under Section 30 of the 2000 POEA-SEC.
• Sickness Allowance and Attorney's Fees: Whether petitioner is entitled to sickness allowance and attorney's fees.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Yes. Diabetes mellitus is disputably presumed work-related under Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, and respondents failed to present any evidence to overcome the presumption. The illness is compensable because petitioner's work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.
• Post-Employment Medical Examination: No, non-compliance does not bar the claim. The employer's refusal to refer petitioner to a company-designated physician constitutes a recognized exception to the mandatory three-day reporting requirement, such that the seafarer's own physician's assessment of permanent total disability prevails.
• Prescription: No, the claim is not barred. The three-year prescriptive period is reckoned from the seafarer's disembarkation on April 11, 2012, and the filing of a Request for SENA on March 25, 2015 sufficed to institute the claim within the reglementary period.
• Sickness Allowance and Attorney's Fees: Yes. Petitioner is entitled to 120 days of sickness allowance and to attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, respondents' acts having compelled him to incur expenses to protect his interest.

• Work-Relatedness and Compensability: Under Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, an illness not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A) is disputably presumed work-related. This presumption creates a burden on the employer to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case. Petitioner reinforced this presumption by showing that during his contract he experienced recurring dizziness and was twice examined at As Salama Hospital in Saudi Arabia, where he was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. He presented medical records from the hospital and post-repatriation medical certificates stating he was unfit to return to work. Respondents, however, did not present a scintilla of proof to establish the lack of causal connection between the disease and the employment. Had they granted petitioner's request for a post-employment medical check-up, they could have produced a contrary medical finding. The Court distinguished work-relatedness from compensability: the former is the assumption that the illness may have been contracted during and in connection with work, while the latter pertains to entitlement to compensation upon a showing that work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease. Citing Millora vs. ECC, the Court noted that stress has major effects on metabolic activity, releasing counter-regulatory hormones that elevate blood glucose levels. Petitioner's duties as an ordinary seaman involved strenuous workload—handling deck gear, scaling and chipping paint, handling mooring lines, standing as lookout—and he was exposed to rush jobs, lack of sleep, heat stress, emergency work, and homesickness. There was no showing that petitioner was predisposed to diabetes by genetics, obesity, or old age. Applying Sevilla vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission and Abana vs. Quisumbing, the Court held that it is enough that employment contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease. The disease was thus compensable.

• Post-Employment Medical Examination: Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC mandates that a seafarer submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon return, failure resulting in forfeiture of the right to claim benefits. The Court recognized two established exceptions: (1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report, and (2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination. Citing Apines vs. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., the Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden to prove the seafarer was referred to a company-designated physician. Petitioner alleged he reported to 88 Aces two days after repatriation and requested referral, but was told the agency could not shoulder his medical expenses. The Court resolved the conflicting allegations in petitioner's favor, noting that his recurring sickness and twice-examined condition at As Salama Hospital days before repatriation lent credence to his claim that he sought medical examination but was prevented by respondents. Citing De Andres vs. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., the Court held that without a company-designated physician's assessment, there was nothing for the seafarer's own physician to contest, and the latter's assessment of permanent total disability stood. Absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the law conclusively characterizes the disability as total and permanent.

• Prescription: Sections 2 and 18 of the POEA-SEC provide that the employment contract ceases when the seafarer completes his contractual service, signs off from the vessel, and arrives at the point of hire. Although petitioner's six-month contract ended in August 2010, he signed off and arrived at the point of hire only on April 11, 2012. Section 30 provides that all claims arising from the contract must be made within three years from the date the cause of action arises. A seafarer's cause of action arises upon disembarkation. Petitioner had until April 11, 2015. He filed a Request for SENA on March 25, 2015, which, as a mandatory 30-day conciliation-mediation process prerequisite to filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, constituted the institution of his claim within the prescriptive period. The subsequent filing of the complaint on May 8, 2015 was of no moment.

• Sickness Allowance and Attorney's Fees: Under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage from sign-off until declared fit to work or the degree of disability is assessed, not exceeding 120 days. Since no assessment was made by a company-designated physician, petitioner is entitled to 120 days of sickness allowance. At US$506.00 per month or US$16.866 per day, the award is US$2,024.00. Attorney's fees are warranted under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, as the action is for recovery of wages and respondents' acts compelled petitioner to incur expenses to protect his interest.

• Disputable Presumption of Work-Relatedness — Under Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, an illness not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A) is disputably presumed work-related. This presumption creates a prima facie case in favor of the seafarer and shifts the burden to the employer to present evidence overcoming it. Absent any such evidence, the presumption prevails. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that respondents failed to adduce a scintilla of proof to establish the lack of causal connection between petitioner's diabetes mellitus and his employment.

• Distinction Between Work-Relatedness and Compensability — Work-relatedness refers to the assumption that the seafarer's illness may have been contracted during and in connection with one's work, while compensability pertains to the entitlement to receive compensation upon a showing that the seafarer's work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease. The presumption under Section 20(B)(4) extends only to work-relatedness, not to compensability. The Court applied this distinction by separately analyzing whether petitioner's work conditions caused or increased the risk of his diabetes, finding that the stress and strain of his duties contributed, even to a small degree, to the development of the disease.

• Exceptions to the Three-Day Post-Employment Medical Examination Requirement — While Section 20(B)(3) mandates that a seafarer submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from repatriation, two recognized exceptions exist: (1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report, and (2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to such examination. The employer bears the burden to prove that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated physician. The Court applied the second exception, finding that respondents refused to refer petitioner despite his request.

• Effect of Absence of Company-Designated Physician's Assessment — The company-designated physician is entrusted with assessing a seafarer's disability and has 120 or 240 days, depending on circumstances, to complete the assessment; otherwise, the disability claim shall be granted. Without such assessment, there is nothing for the seafarer's own physician to contest, and the seafarer's physician's assessment prevails. Absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the law conclusively characterizes the disability as total and permanent.

• Prescriptive Period for Seafarer's Claims — Under Section 30 of the 2000 POEA-SEC, all claims arising from the contract must be filed within three years from the date the cause of action arises. A seafarer's cause of action arises upon disembarkation from the vessel. The filing of a Request for SENA, being a mandatory prerequisite to filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, constitutes the institution of the claim for purposes of prescription.

• "The effect of the legal presumption in favor of the seafarer is to create a burden on the part of the employer to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case of work-relatedness. Absent any evidence from the employer to defeat the legal presumption, the prima facie case of work-relatedness prevails." — This passage articulates the operative effect of the disputable presumption under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC and the burden-shifting framework that governs seafarer disability claims.

• "Nonetheless, the presumption provided under Section 20(B)(4) is only limited to the 'work-relatedness' of an illness. It does not cover and extend to compensability." — This passage draws the critical distinction between work-relatedness and compensability, clarifying that the statutory presumption operates only on the former and that compensability requires an independent showing that work conditions caused or increased the risk of the disease.

• "Between the non-existent medical assessment of the company-designated physician and the medical assessment of Apolinario's doctor of choice—stating that his disability is permanent and total—the latter evidently stands. Absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent." — This passage states the rule governing the consequence of an employer's failure to procure a company-designated physician's assessment: the seafarer's own physician's evaluation prevails and the disability is conclusively deemed total and permanent.

• "It is enough that his employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease." — This passage, quoted from Abana vs. Quisumbing as adopted in Sevilla vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, states the governing standard for compensability: employment need not be the sole cause of the illness, only a contributing factor, even to a small degree.

• Millora vs. ECC, 227 Phil. 139 (1986) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the medical proposition that stress has major effects on metabolic activity and that stressful work situations produce hormones that are "contra-insulin" in their effects, contributing to chronic hyperglycemia in diabetes. The Court applied its reasoning to the seafarer context.
• Sevilla vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 174 Phil. 448 (1978) — Followed. The Court cited this case, which in turn quoted Abana vs. Quisumbing, for the principle that employment need not be the sole factor in the development of an illness; it is enough that employment contributed, even in a small degree.
• Abana vs. Quisumbing, 131 Phil. 387 (1986) — Followed (as quoted in Sevilla). Established the "even in a small degree" standard for compensability of work-related illness.
• Apines vs. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., 799 Phil. 220 (2016) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the principle that the employer, not the seafarer, bears the burden to prove that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated physician.
• De Andres vs. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., 813 Phil. 746 (2017) — Followed. The Court applied this case for the rule that where the employer fails to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician, the seafarer's own physician's assessment stands and the disability claim is granted.
• Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Pangasian, G.R. No. 223295, March 13, 2019 — Followed. Cited for the two recognized exceptions to the mandatory three-day post-employment medical examination requirement.
• Romana vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 192442, August 9, 2017 — Followed. Cited for the presumption of work-relatedness under Section 20(B)(4) and the entitlement to sickness allowance under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC.
• Lorna B. Dionio vs. ND Shipping Agency and Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. 231096, August 15, 2018 — Followed. Cited for the rule that the post-employment medical check-up is the proper basis to determine the seafarer's illness and its work-relatedness, and for the 120/240-day period for the company-designated physician's assessment.

• Section 20(B)(4), 2000 POEA-SEC — Provides that if the illness is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A), the ailment is disputably presumed work-related. Applied to hold that petitioner's diabetes mellitus is presumptively work-related and that respondents failed to overcome the presumption.
• Section 20(B)(3), 2000 POEA-SEC — Mandates that a seafarer submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon return, with forfeiture of benefits for non-compliance. Applied with its recognized exceptions, the Court holding that respondents' refusal to refer petitioner constituted an exception excusing non-compliance.
• Section 32(A), 2000 POEA-SEC — Lists occupational diseases deemed work-related. Diabetes mellitus is not listed, triggering the disputable presumption under Section 20(B)(4).
• Sections 2 and 18, 2000 POEA-SEC — Provide that the employment contract commences upon the seafarer's departure from the point of hire and ceases when the seafarer completes his contractual service, signs off, and arrives at the point of hire. Applied to determine that petitioner's contract effectively ceased on April 11, 2012, when he arrived at the point of hire, not August 2010.
• Section 30, 2000 POEA-SEC — Provides that all claims arising from the contract must be made within three years from the date the cause of action arises. Applied to hold that petitioner's claim, filed via Request for SENA on March 25, 2015, was within the three-year period from his April 11, 2012 disembarkation.
• Section 20(A)(3), 2010 POEA-SEC — Provides for sickness allowance equivalent to the seafarer's basic wage from sign-off until declared fit to work or disability is assessed, not exceeding 120 days. Applied to award US$2,024.00 as sickness allowance for 120 days.
• Article 2208, New Civil Code — Authorizes recovery of attorney's fees in actions for recovery of wages of laborers and when the respondent's act or omission has compelled the complainant to incur expenses to protect his interest. Applied to award attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award.

Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concurred. Leonen, J., was on leave.