G.R. No. 217338, March 18, 2021
DINO S. PALO, PETITIONER, VS. SENATOR CREWING (MANILA), INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Dino S. Palo was hired by respondent Senator Crewing (Manila), Inc. (SCI) as an Oiler. During his first contract onboard M/S CMA CGM Verlaine, he felt a snap in his back while carrying a heavy container in December 2011. He was examined in Mexico but not repatriated, finishing his contract on March 25, 2012. Upon repatriation, he was not provided medical attention. On April 25, 2012, he signed a new contract for L/T Cortesia after a Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME) declared him fit. On July 7, 2012, while lifting a pump motor, he suffered unbearable back pain. After examinations in Malaysia and England, he was medically repatriated on October 6, 2012. SCI referred him to company-designated physicians, who diagnosed disc conditions and performed surgery in December 2012. On March 19, 2013 (164 days post-repatriation), the company physician issued a certification of treatment but no final disability assessment. On March 22, 2013, Palo consulted a personal physician who declared him totally and permanently disabled, and he filed a complaint for disability benefits. SCI resisted the claim, alleging Palo fraudulently concealed a pre-existing back condition from 2001 in his PEME and that his disability was only partial (Grade 8). The Labor Arbiter granted Palo’s claim, ruling his injury was work-related and his disability permanent and total due to the company physician’s failure to issue a timely assessment. The NLRC reversed, disqualifying Palo for benefits due to concealment. The Court of Appeals dismissed Palo’s Petition for Certiorari outright for procedural deficiencies (failure to state material dates and respondents’ addresses).

ISSUE

Whether Palo is entitled to disability benefits.

RULING

Yes, Palo is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that the procedural dismissal by the CA was too stringent, as Palo rectified the deficiencies in his motion for reconsideration. On the merits, the Court found that Palo’s non-disclosure of his 2001 back condition was not fraudulent concealment that would bar his claim under the POEA-SEC. The condition from 2001 was remote, and he was declared fit in two subsequent PEMEs. His injury was deemed work-related, occurring during the term of his contract and aggravated by his duties. The company-designated physician failed to issue a final disability assessment within the 120/240-day period as required by law. The certification issued on the 164th day was a mere medical report, not a definitive assessment of fitness or disability grade. This failure resulted in Palo’s disability being deemed permanent and total. He is awarded US$60,000.00 as disability benefits under the CBA. However, the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were deleted for lack of basis, as SCI’s denial of the claim was based on a defense of concealment and not in bad faith.