GR 225847; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225847 July 3, 2019
DANILO L. PACIO, Petitioner vs. DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED, and/or MANOLO T. GACUTAN, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo L. Pacio was hired as an Able Seaman in July 2012. During his pre-employment medical examination (PEME), he disclosed his pre-existing hypertension since 2011. He was certified fit for duty but signed an undertaking acknowledging his condition and declaring that any disabling sickness resulting from it would be deemed pre-existing and non-compensable. Five months into his contract, he suffered from high blood pressure and dizziness, was declared unfit for duty in Romania, and was repatriated. The company-designated physician diagnosed him with hypertension and a transient ischemic attack, stating the conditions were not work-related and assessing him as unfit for four months. The petitioner did not seek a second opinion and only filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits over ten months after his repatriation.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic rests on the petitioner’s failure to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for a disability claim. First, the company-designated physician issued a timely assessment within the 120/240-day period, declaring the petitioner unfit for only four months. The petitioner did not contest this assessment by seeking a second opinion from an independent physician, a mandatory step under the POEA-SEC to create a conflict in medical findings. His inaction for over ten months constituted abandonment of his treatment and forfeited his right to contest the initial assessment.
Second, the petitioner’s pre-existing hypertension was fully known and documented, and he signed a valid undertaking acknowledging its non-compensable nature. His subsequent illness, a transient ischemic attack, was directly linked to this pre-existing condition by the company doctor, with no evidence presented to prove work-connection or aggravation. The Court emphasized that while a pre-existing condition does not automatically bar compensation if aggravated by work, the burden of proof lies with the seafarer. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, his claim for permanent total disability benefits was without merit.