GR 182623; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182623; December 4, 2009
DIONISIO M. MUSNIT, Petitioner, vs. SEA STAR SHIPPING CORPORATION and SEA STAR SHIPPING CORPORATION, LTD., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dionisio M. Musnit was hired as a chief cook by respondent Sea Star Shipping Corporation for a three-month contract, later extended, on board the M/V Navajo Princess. He was declared fit for duty after a pre-employment medical examination. During his contract, he claimed to have experienced chest pains and shortness of breath in August 2002, which he reported to an unnamed officer. He completed his contract and was repatriated on October 31, 2002. He alleged he reported his condition to the agency upon return but was not referred to a doctor.
Seven months post-repatriation, during a pre-employment medical exam for a new contract in May 2003, petitioner was diagnosed with cardiac dysrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, and other conditions and declared unfit for duty. He later obtained a private physician’s opinion in June 2004 assessing him with a Grade IX disability and deeming his illness work-aggravated. He subsequently filed a claim for disability benefits, which was denied by the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to disability benefits and sickness allowance under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower tribunals’ decisions. The legal logic hinges on strict compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC). For a claim to prosper, the seafarer must prove that the illness or injury is work-related and occurred during the term of the contract. Crucially, Section 20(B) of the SEC mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon repatriation.
Petitioner failed to comply with this mandatory procedural requirement. He did not undergo the required post-employment medical examination within the stipulated period after his repatriation in October 2002. His first medical assessment occurred seven months later during an application for re-employment, which is not equivalent to the mandated examination following sign-off. This failure is fatal to his claim. Furthermore, the Court found no substantial evidence that his illness was suffered during the term of his employment contract, as he completed his contract and was repatriated due to its completion, with no official report of any medical incident on board. His reliance on a private physician’s assessment years later could not override the contractual requirement for a timely company-designated examination to establish the work-relatedness and compensability of an alleged illness.