G.R. No. 218167 , November 07, 2018
HENRY R. ESPOSO, PETITIONER, VS. EPSILON MARITIME SERVICES, INC., W-MARINE INC. AND MR. ELPIDIO C. JAMORA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Henry Esposo was continuously hired by respondent Epsilon Maritime Services, Inc. for its foreign principal, W-Marine Inc., as Chief Engineer. His last contract, approved on October 25, 2012, was for six months. He underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared fit to work with the note “Hypertension Controlled with medication.” He boarded the vessel on November 22, 2012, and was repatriated on June 20, 2013, after his contract expired. On October 2, 2013, he filed a complaint for disability benefits.
Esposo claimed that in the last week of April 2013, while on duty, he experienced severe chest pains, dizziness, difficulty breathing, severe headache, and persistent perspiration. He reported this to the vessel’s Master but was advised to wait for repatriation as his contract was about to end. After repatriation, he reported to Epsilon for a post-employment medical examination but was told to rest and wait for a call. Due to his deteriorating condition, he consulted an independent physician, Dr. Romeo J. Santos, who diagnosed him with Coronary Heart Disease on June 22, 2013. A subsequent Medical Certificate dated November 7, 2013, declared him unfit to work from October 1 to December 31, 2013. Esposo alleged that Epsilon never provided medical attention or financial assistance, forcing him to shoulder all medical expenses. He filed for disability benefits, permanent disability compensation under his CBA, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondents averred that Esposo never complained of or requested medical assistance for any health concerns onboard except for a “skin burn” incident on December 17, 2012. They presented a Resignation Report dated April 29, 2013, where Esposo requested repatriation due to his contract’s impending expiration. They claimed that after completing his contract, Esposo signed off and arrived in Manila on June 20, 2013, but failed to submit himself for a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three days and instead filed the complaint.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding that Esposo failed to substantiate his claim that he reported for a post-employment medical examination within three working days as required by the POEA-SEC. The LA noted that Esposo was not medically repatriated and his contract terminated without medical issues. The NLRC reversed the LA, awarding Esposo total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00, sickness allowance for 130 days, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC ruled that Esposo’s submission to a private physician within 72 hours of repatriation confirmed his illness occurred onboard, and his being declared unfit for over 120 days entitled him to benefits. The Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the LA’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the NLRC decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of Esposo’s complaint for disability benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that for a claim of disability benefits to prosper, the seafarer must comply with the mandatory reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC. Section 20(A), paragraph 3 of the 2010 POEA-SEC requires that upon sign-off from the vessel, the seafarer must report to the company-designated physician within three working days for a post-employment medical examination. Failure to comply results in the forfeiture of the right to claim disability benefits.
The Court found that Esposo failed to comply with this mandatory requirement. He did not report to the company-designated physician within three working days upon his repatriation on June 20, 2013. Instead, he consulted a private physician on June 22, 2013. His claim that he reported to Epsilon but was told to rest and wait for a call was unsubstantiated. Compliance with the three-day mandatory reporting rule is crucial, and failure to do so forfeits the claim. The Court emphasized that the reporting requirement is a condition precedent for claiming disability benefits, and the seafarer’s failure to report severs the employer’s liability.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Esposo’s illness, Coronary Heart Disease, is not considered work-related under the POEA-SEC. His PEME indicated “Hypertension Controlled with medication,” and his condition was not shown to have been aggravated by his work during the term of his contract. The Court also found that Esposo’s claim of total and permanent disability was negated by evidence that he was processed for redeployment on February 10, 2014, within 240 days from his repatriation, indicating he was fit to work.
Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s ruling that Esposo was not entitled to disability benefits due to his failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement and the lack of evidence proving his illness was work-related and constituted total and permanent disability.