GR 201359; (September, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201359 , September 23, 2015
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. and/or Mr. Eduardo U. Manese, Petitioners, vs. Virgilio L. Mazaredo, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Virgilio L. Mazaredo, employed by petitioner Magsaysay Maritime Corporation for its principal Princess Cruise Lines, was deployed on July 5, 2008, as an Upholsterer. On February 4, 2009, he experienced back pain. On March 12, 2009, the ship’s doctor diagnosed him with uncontrolled hypertension, probable previous silent inferior myocardial infarct, left ventricular hypertrophy, tachycardia, and recommended further tests and specialist consultation. He was medically repatriated on March 22, 2009. The company-designated physician’s examinations revealed “coronary artery disease, three-vessel involvement,” recommending coronary artery bypass graft surgery. On July 6, 2009, respondent underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (angioplasty) instead, an outpatient procedure he chose and paid for himself, as petitioners allegedly did not provide medical and financial assistance after the initial diagnosis. On September 25, 2009, an independent physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, declared respondent unfit to resume work as a seaman, requiring maintenance medication and not expected to land gainful employment. Respondent filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits and other claims on July 27, 2009. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, awarding permanent total disability benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC with modification, deleting the award of attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Virgilio L. Mazaredo is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court ruled that respondent’s coronary artery disease is a compensable illness under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, as it is listed as an occupational disease. The company-designated physician failed to issue a final assessment of respondent’s disability grade within the 120/240-day period as required by law. Respondent’s repatriation on March 22, 2009, started the period for assessment. No final assessment was provided by the company-designated physician even after 240 days. By operation of law, specifically under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and the relevant rules, when temporary total disability lasts continuously for more than 120 days, it is deemed permanent and total, except as otherwise provided. Since no definitive assessment was issued within 240 days from repatriation, respondent is deemed permanently and totally disabled. The independent physician’s assessment, while obtained after the complaint was filed, corroborated this permanent disability. Therefore, respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00.