G.R. No. 228504. June 06, 2018.
PHILSYNERGY MARITIME, INC. AND/OR TRIMURTI SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. COLUMBANO PAGUNSAN GALLANO, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Columbano Gallano, Jr., a 62-year-old Ship Master, was employed by petitioners under a six-month contract. After a pre-employment medical examination declared him fit, he boarded the vessel. On October 10, 2012, while on duty, he suffered a stroke, experiencing numbness and slurred speech. He was treated in New Caledonia and repatriated on October 23, 2012. The company-designated physician diagnosed him with Cerebrovascular Infarct and Hypertension, deemed these illnesses not work-related, and provided treatment. By March 2013, his condition had stabilized, but he was advised to continue medication and rehabilitation.
Respondent, claiming no improvement and that more than 120 days had passed since repatriation, sought permanent total disability benefits. Petitioners refused, alleging he fraudulently concealed a pre-existing condition because he possessed Isordil medication on board. Respondent consulted an independent physician, who declared his illnesses work-aggravated and assessed him with a Grade VII disability, unfit for sea duty. He filed a complaint for disability benefits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of permanent total disability benefits. The legal logic centers on the application of the 120/240-day rule for assessing disability. Respondent was repatriated on October 23, 2012. The company-designated physician did not issue a final assessment of fitness for duty or permanent disability within the 120-day period, nor was there a justification to extend the assessment period to 240 days. The Medical Report dated March 9, 2013, merely noted stabilization and advised continued rehabilitation; it was not a definitive declaration of fitness. Consequently, by operation of law, respondent’s temporary total disability lasting beyond 120 days without a final assessment ripened into permanent total disability.
The Court rejected the defense of fraudulent concealment. The mere possession of Isordil tablets, without proof that respondent was previously diagnosed and treated for a condition he knowingly concealed during his PEME, is insufficient to establish willful misrepresentation. The illnesses are considered work-related under the POEA-SEC, as they manifested during the term of his contract. The independent physician’s assessment of work-aggravation further supports compensability. Thus, respondent is entitled to benefits under the governing CBA, which provided a higher benefit than the POEA-SEC. Attorney’s fees were also awarded as respondent was compelled to litigate.