G.R. No. 201834 . June 01, 2016
ANDRES L. DIZON, PETITIONER, VS. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND DOLE UK (LTD.), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Andres L. Dizon was employed as a Chief Cook by respondents Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. and DOLE UK (Ltd.) for over thirty years. He completed his latest nine-month contract aboard the MV DOLE COLOMBIA on February 14, 2007, and was repatriated. In March 2007, during a mandatory pre-employment medical examination for a new contract, he was declared unfit for sea duty due to uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease. Dizon sought a second opinion from the Seamen’s Hospital, which declared him fit, but the company-designated clinic refused a re-examination. He was not redeployed.
Dizon filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, alleging his heart condition was work-related, having developed from the stressful and heavy workload during his long service. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, applying the presumption of compensability and noting his illness manifested shortly after repatriation. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding Dizon failed to report for a post-employment medical examination within three working days from repatriation as required and did not prove his illness was work-related. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Andres L. Dizon is entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on Dizon’s failure to comply with a mandatory procedural requirement and his inability to substantiate his claim.
First, the Court emphasized the procedural requirement under the POEA-SEC that a seafarer must report to the company-designated physician within three working days from repatriation for a post-employment medical examination. This procedure is crucial for assessing a seafarer’s condition and determining liability for disability benefits. Dizon did not report within this period. Instead, he only submitted himself for examination a month later, and that was for a pre-employment check-up for a new contract. His failure to observe the three-day rule is fatal to his claim, as it deprived the employer of the opportunity to make a proper assessment of his condition upon the termination of his previous contract.
Second, on the substantive aspect, the Court found Dizon failed to prove by substantial evidence that his coronary artery disease was work-related or aggravated by his working conditions. While hypertension and heart disease are considered occupational diseases under the POEA-SEC, the seafarer must still present evidence that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working conditions. Dizon’s general allegations of stress and heavy workload, without specific proof linking these conditions to the development of his illness, were insufficient. His completion of his contract without incident and the discovery of his illness only during a pre-employment examination for a new engagement further weakened the claim that it was incurred during the term of his previous contract. The award of financial assistance by the NLRC was deemed an act of compassion, not an admission of liability.