GR 210955; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210955 August 14, 2019
DANILO A. LERONA, Petitioner, vs. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC. and/or NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO., LTD., and/or Ms. ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo A. Lerona was employed by respondent Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. on behalf of Neda Maritime Agency Co., Ltd. as a fitter on board M/V Penelope. During his pre-employment medical examination (PEME), he was declared “FIT TO WORK AS SEAMAN” and did not disclose his pre-existing hypertension. On August 1, 2009, while on board, he experienced severe chest pains and dizziness. After a medical checkup in China where no medication or repatriation was recommended, he was repatriated on August 13, 2009. He was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. Jose Emmanuel F. Gonzales, who, after consultations and tests including a Stress-Thallium Test and coronary angiogram, found petitioner negative for vessel abnormalities and cleared him of Coronary Arterial Disease. Petitioner was also diagnosed with mild sensori-neural hearing loss. He was placed under observation and scheduled for a follow-up on October 23, 2009, but failed to appear, leading Dr. Gonzales to declare he had absconded. Petitioner instead consulted an independent physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, on December 17, 2009, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duty. Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits on January 14, 2010. Upon respondents’ insistence, he returned to Dr. Gonzales on April 21, 2010, and was declared “Fit to Resume Sea Duties.”
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
RULING
No, petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Supreme Court denied the claim due to fraudulent misrepresentation and medical abandonment under the 2000 POEA-SEC. Petitioner concealed his pre-existing hypertensive condition during his PEME, which constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation disqualifying him from benefits under Section 20(E). Furthermore, petitioner medically abandoned his treatment by failing to attend his scheduled follow-up checkup with the company-designated physician, who could have issued a fit-to-work certification earlier. The findings of the company-designated physician, based on extensive examinations, prevail over the single examination by petitioner’s chosen physician. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which set aside the rulings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.