GR 205725; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205725, January 18, 2021
MARCELO M. CORPUZ, JR., PETITIONER, VS. GERWIL CREWING PHILS., INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Marcelo M. Corpuz, Jr. was recruited by respondent Gerwil Crewing Phils., Inc. to work as an Able Seaman for Echo Cargo & Shipping LLC on board the vessel MT Azarakhsh. He was deployed on August 5, 2008. On May 17, 2009, petitioner was hospitalized due to severe headache and vomiting after allegedly sustaining a fall while lifting heavy motor parts on board. He was diagnosed with Left Cerebellar Hemorrhage with Intraventricular Hematoma and was repatriated on September 9, 2009. Petitioner claims he reported to respondent’s office the next day but was denied medical assistance and humiliated by the CEO. He subsequently consulted his own doctors, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duty with a Grade I disability. Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter granted his claim. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, finding petitioner failed to report upon repatriation and to prove his injury was work-related. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing procedural defects in respondent’s NLRC appeal and his entitlement to disability benefits.
ISSUE
1. Whether respondent’s appeal before the NLRC was procedurally infirm for being filed out of time and without a bond.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.
RULING
1. No, respondent’s appeal before the NLRC was not procedurally infirm. Respondent received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on September 30, 2010, and had until October 10, 2010, to appeal. Since October 10 fell on a Sunday, the deadline extended to October 11, 2010, the date respondent filed its appeal. Furthermore, the records show respondent secured a supersedeas bond from CAP General Insurance Corporation. Thus, the appeal was perfected.
2. No, petitioner is not entitled to disability benefits. Under the 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract, a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from repatriation. Petitioner failed to do so. His name did not appear in respondent’s visitor logbook for the relevant period, and he did not present contrary evidence. This failure is fatal to his claim. Additionally, petitioner did not substantiate his claim that his illness was work-related. The medical certificates from his personal doctors contained conclusions unsupported by evidence. The NLRC and CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in denying the claim. However, the Supreme Court found respondent liable for moral and exemplary damages due to its wanton disregard of its duty to provide post-employment medical examination, and for attorney’s fees. The Court modified the NLRC and CA decisions accordingly.