G.R. No. 245917 , February 26, 2020
JOSUE A. ANTOLINO, PETITIONER, VS. HANSEATIC SHIPPING PHILS. INC., LEONHARD & BLUMBERG REEDEREI GMBH & CO. KG, AND/OR ROSALINDA P. BAUMANN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Josue A. Antolino was hired by respondent Hanseatic Shipping Phils. Inc. as a bosun. On June 5, 2015, while working on board the M/V Hansa Fresenburg, he fell and injured his left elbow. He was medically repatriated and referred to the company-designated physician in the Philippines for treatment and physiotherapy. He received sickness allowance from June 14 to October 11, 2015. On October 5, 2015, he was informed that his next medical examination in Manila was scheduled for November 4, 2015. Antolino, then in his home province of Antique, requested that Hanseatic shoulder his airfare and travel allowance to attend the check-up. Hanseatic refused, offering only reimbursement upon his arrival. Due to alleged financial incapacity, Antolino failed to attend the November 4 examination. He eventually financed his own trip and appeared before the company-designated physician on January 22, 2016. He was then asked to sign a fit-to-work document and was told that refusal would render him ineligible for disability benefits due to medical abandonment for missing the November check-up. Antolino refused to sign and instead consulted his own doctor, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira, who declared him unfit for sea duty. Antolino informed Hanseatic of this and requested referral to a third doctor. Hanseatic did not respond, prompting Antolino to file a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter granted his claim, ruling his failure to attend the check-up was justified by financial incapacity and that Hanseatic’s failure to refer the case to a third doctor entitled him to benefits. The NLRC reversed, finding Antolino guilty of medical abandonment and not totally and permanently disabled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, holding that while financial incapacity could justify missing a check-up, Antolino’s condition did not constitute total and permanent disability under the law.

ISSUE

Whether or not Antolino is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

RULING

No, Antolino is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court found that Antolino unjustifiably abandoned his medical treatment, resulting in the forfeiture of his disability benefits. While financial incapacity can excuse failure to attend a scheduled medical examination, such an allegation must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Antolino failed to substantiate his claim of financial straits, especially considering he had been consistently provided sickness allowance during his treatment period. His failure to attend the November 4, 2015 check-up and his appearance only three months later, without sufficient justification, constituted medical abandonment. Furthermore, the severity of his injury (a calcified fleck near the elbow with no fracture or dislocation) did not meet the threshold for total and permanent disability benefits, which, under the relevant schedule, requires a condition such as “total paralysis of both upper extremities.” The Court emphasized that while the law leans towards the protection of labor, justice requires that the employer’s rights be sustained when the employee is at fault.