G.R. No. 160444 ; August 29, 2012
WALL EM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO C. TANAWAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Ernesto Tanawan was employed as a dozer driver by petitioner Wall Em Maritime Services, Inc. On November 22, 1997, while assisting co-workers in lifting a steel plate aboard the vessel, the plate hit his left foot, causing multiple fractures. He was treated in Malaysia and repatriated. He reported to the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, on December 1, 1997. After treatment, including bone grafting, Dr. Lim declared him fit to work on May 21, 1998. Separately, Tanawan claimed that on October 5, 1997, paint thinner splashed into his right eye while working. He alleged he reported it to the ship’s doctor but continued working. He later consulted an independent ophthalmologist in August 1998, who diagnosed retinal detachment and assessed a Grade 7 disability.
Tanawan filed a complaint for disability benefits for both injuries. The Labor Arbiter granted his claims for both the foot and eye injuries. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the claims. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Tanawan is entitled to disability benefits for his foot injury despite being declared fit to work by the company-designated physician; and (2) Whether he is entitled to disability benefits for his alleged eye injury.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. For the foot injury, the Court denied the claim for disability benefits. The ruling emphasized that for a seafarer to claim disability benefits, the injury must be suffered during the employment contract, and the seafarer must submit to the post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician within three working days from repatriation. Tanawan complied with the latter requirement. However, the company-designated physician’s assessment, declaring him fit to work, is given primacy. The Court found no evidence that this assessment was arbitrary or fraudulent. Tanawan’s consultation with a private physician, Dr. Saguin, who assessed a Grade 12 disability while Tanawan was still under the company physician’s care, did not constitute a valid contestation of the fit-to-work declaration. The law requires the seafarer to signify his intent to contest the assessment; mere procurement of a contrary opinion is insufficient.
For the eye injury, the Court also denied the claim. Tanawan failed to prove the injury was sustained during his employment. He did not report the alleged October 1997 incident in writing to the master of the vessel or the company agent upon his repatriation, as required by the POEA Standard Employment Contract. His claim surfaced only months later when he consulted an independent doctor. The absence of any entry in his medical records or any report to the company created serious doubt about the injury’s work-relatedness. Consequently, he failed to discharge the burden of proving that the eye injury was sustained during the term of his contract. The award for the eye injury was deleted.