G.R. No. 224753 , June 19, 2019
JOSE ASPIRAS MALICDEM, Petitioner, vs. ASIA BULK TRANSPORT PHILS., INC., INTER-OCEAN COMPANY LIMITED (FORMERLY OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY) AND ERNESTO T. TUVIDA, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Aspiras Malicdem was hired by respondent Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc. (ABTPI) on June 1, 2011, for a three-month contract as Chief Engineer on board MV Yushio Princess II. His Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) noted a history of high blood pressure and hypertension, but he was declared “fit to work.” During the second week of duty, he suffered blurring vision and headache, was seen by a doctor in Japan, and was repatriated on October 16, 2011. The company-designated physician, Dr. Susannah Ong-Salvador, diagnosed him with glaucoma on October 17, 2011, and later clarified it was not work-related. In December 2011, after another PEME where he was declared fit, he signed a new nine-month contract and boarded MV Nord Liberty on December 31, 2011. He alleged that during this contract, he was exposed to psychological stress, unhealthy food, engine room heat, and diesel fumes. In October 2012, he experienced dizziness and blurring vision, was seen by a doctor in Japan, and was repatriated on October 12, 2012. He claimed he reported to respondents’ office on October 15, 2012, requesting a post-employment medical examination but was not referred. He consulted a private doctor, Dr. Liberato Casison, on March 12, 2014, who assessed him as “disabled for any work.” On March 25, 2014, he filed a complaint for disability benefits, claiming his hypertension and glaucoma were work-related. The company-designated physician maintained in a May 29, 2014 reply that the glaucoma was not work-related. Respondents argued the illnesses were not work-related and that Malicdem failed to report to a company-designated physician within three days from disembarkation as required.

ISSUE

1. Whether Malicdem’s illnesses (hypertension and glaucoma) are compensable as work-related under the POEA-SEC.
2. Whether failure to comply with the three-day mandatory reportorial requirement under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC results in forfeiture of disability claims.
3. Whether the disputable presumption of work-relatedness under Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA-SEC applies in Malicdem’s favor.
4. Whether Malicdem is permanently and totally disabled.
5. Whether Malicdem is entitled to sickness allowance and damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision, which upheld the National Labor Relations Commission and Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint.
1. On Compensability of Illnesses: The Court ruled that Malicdem failed to prove his hypertension and glaucoma were work-related. For hypertension to be compensable under Section 32(A)(20) of the POEA-SEC, specific documentary requirements (e.g., chest x-ray, electrocardiogram, blood pressure readings) must be presented, which Malicdem did not submit. His bare allegations about onboard conditions exacerbating his hypertension were insufficient. For glaucoma, he failed to present substantial evidence linking it to his working conditions. The company-designated physician’s finding that it was not work-related, based on expertise and prior examination, prevailed over his unsupported claims. The disputable presumption of work-relatedness under the POEA-SEC does not apply when, as here, the seafarer fails to present credible evidence to establish a causal connection.
2. On the Three-Day Reportorial Requirement: The Court held that Malicdem’s failure to report to the company-designated physician within three working days from his repatriation on October 12, 2012, resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim disability benefits. Compliance with this procedural requirement is mandatory to entitle a seafarer to an assessment and disability benefits. His claim that he reported to respondents’ office on October 15, 2012, but was not referred, was unsubstantiated and did not excuse non-compliance.
3. On the Disputable Presumption: The Court clarified that the disputable presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA-SEC that illnesses are work-related is not conclusive. The seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that the working conditions caused or aggravated the illness. Malicdem failed to discharge this burden.
4. On Permanent and Total Disability: The Court found no basis to declare Malicdem permanently and totally disabled. A seafarer must be assessed by a company-designated physician within the prescribed periods (120/240 days) under the POEA-SEC and the Labor Code. Malicdem did not undergo such an assessment due to his failure to report. The private doctor’s assessment in 2014, made long after repatriation and without a prior company assessment, could not be given credence to establish permanent total disability.
5. On Entitlement to Sickness Allowance and Damages: Having failed to establish a compensable disability, Malicdem is not entitled to sickness allowance or damages. The Labor Arbiter’s award of ₱50,000.00 as financial assistance for humanitarian consideration was not disturbed as it was not appealed by respondents.
The Court emphasized that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, being supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality.