Seagull Ship Management Vs NLRC

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 123619
June 8, 2000
SEAGULL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT, INC., and DOMINION

INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BENJAMIN T. TUAZON,
respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.
This petition for review is properly a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and not
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. In it, petitioners 5assail the Resolution dated November
24, 1995 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the Decision
dated January 19, 1995 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The
Resolution ordered petitioners to pay, jointly and severally, complainant Benjamin Tuazon, the
amount of US$2,200 representing 120 days sickness benefits and US$15,000 representing
disability benefits as appended to the POEA Standard Contract.
On March 17, 1991, private respondent Benjamin T. Tuazon, now deceased, and represented in
the instant case by her daughter, Mrs. Noelee Tuazon-Buenaventura, 1 was deployed by Seagull
to work as radio officer on board its vessel, MV Pixy Maru. The contract was for 12 months
commencing on March 7, 1991, with basic monthly salary of US$550.00 plus a fixed monthly
overtime pay equivalent to thirty (30%) percent of the basic monthly salary.
Prior to his deployment and as a condition to final hiring, Tuazon was required to submit to a
medical examination with the petitioner's accredited clinic which is the LDM Clinic and
Laboratory. The medical examination consisted among others, of the standard X-ray exposure,
and urine tests.
In 1986, complainant underwent a heart surgery for an insertion of a pacemaker. 2 Hence, the
accredited clinic of Seagull, through Dr. Tordesillas, 3 required him to secure from his
cardiologist a certification to the effect that he could do normal physical activities. Consequently,
he was declared fit to work.
Sometime in December 1991, while on board the vessel, Tuazon suffered bouts of coughing and
shortness of breathing. He was immediately sent to a hospital in Japan for medical check-up, and
was confined at the Kagoshimashiritsu Hospital, Kagoshima City, from December 12 to 27,
1991. 4 Based on the doctor's diagnosis, an open heart surgery was needed. Due to this medical
findings, on December 28, 1991, he was repatriated back in the Philippines. Upon arrival,
Seagull referred him to its accredited physician, Dr. Villena. 5 An open-heart surgery was then
performed on Tuazon. He shouldered all the costs and expenses.
Tuazon then filed a complaint asking for sickness and disability benefits with the POEA. On
January 19, 1995, the POEA rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, respondent Seagull Shipmanagement and
Transport, Inc. and Dominion Insurance Corporation are hereby ordered jointly and
severally liable to pay complainant, Benjamin Tuazon, the following:
1. US$2,200 representing 120 days sickness benefits;
2. 100% for permanent disability in the amount of US$15,00[0].00 representing the
disability benefits provided for under Appendix "A" of the POEA Standard Contract.
SO ORDERED. 6
On appeal the NLRC affirmed the findings of the POEA and dismissed the appeal for lack of
merit. In its Resolution dated November 24, 1995 the NLRC held in part,
It must be stated, at the outset that the appeal is not impressed with merit. The
preponderance of evidence indicates that complainant was repatriated due to an illness
sustained during the period of his employment with the respondent. Moreover, it was
sufficiently established that respondent's physician already knew, as early as June 1989,
of the existence of complainant's pacemaker. This is, indeed, precisely the reason why he
was asked to submit a medical certificate to the effect that he could do normal physical
activities. (p. 3 of Administrator's Decision; Rollo, p. 141) 7
Dissatisfied, petitioners now claim before us that the NLRC erred:
I. . . . IN AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF POEA THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER'S PHYSICIAN KNEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF
THE PACEMAKER INSERTED IN PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
II. . . . IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT MISREPRESENTED
AND/OR DID NOT MAKE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF HIS STATE OF HEALTH
AND/OR MEDICAL HISTORY.
III. . . . IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S SICKNESS WAS
SUSTAINED DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND THEREFORE
COMPENSABLE.
IV. . . . IN SUSTAINING THE POEA IN AWARDING SICKNESS AND PERMANENT
DISABILITY BENEFITS.
V. . . . IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR

PAYMENT OF REPATRIATION EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
In their Memorandum, petitioners admitted that they inadvertently stated that the instant petition
is under Rule 45 but asked for consideration since they had substantially complied with the
requisites of Rule 65 and that their petition be given due course for it had merit.
Private respondent countered that even if the instant petition could be considered under Rule 65,
the petition should still not prosper for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for not
filing the required Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC before going to the Supreme
Court.
In the interest of justice, we have often treated as special civil actions for certiorari petitions
erroneously captioned as petitions for review on certiorari.8 Accordingly, we shall now consider
the petition.1awphil
Firstly, with regard to the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, we have long settled that
the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the institution of a special
civil action for certiorari, subject to well-recognized exceptions. The law intends to afford the
tribunal, board or office, an opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed into
before resort to the courts of justice can be had. However, in the case at bar, petitioners had not
only failed to explain its failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, it has also
failed to show sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement. Certiorari cannot be
resorted to as a shield from the adverse consequences of petitioners' own omission to file the
required motion for reconsideration. 9
Secondly, petitioners argue mainly that the NLRC erred in affirming the POEA's holdings that
petitioner's physician knew of the pacemaker of private respondent and that private respondent
was liable for misrepresentation and non-disclosure of his true health condition.
But, on this and other points, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the NLRC. The records
of the case do not clearly show that the NLRC committed any error in affirming the decision of
the POEA, and in ordering the petitioners, jointly and severally, to pay Tuazon or his heirs
sickness benefits and permanent disability benefits.
As succinctly observed by the NLRC
. . . The preponderance of evidence indicates that complainant was repatriated due to an
illness sustained during the period of his employment with the respondent. Moreover, it
was sufficiently established that respondent's physician already knew, as early as June
1989, or the existence of the complainant's pacemaker. This is, indeed, precisely the
reason why he was asked to submit a medical certificate to the effect that he could do
normal physical activities. (p. 3 of Administrator's Decision; Rollo, p. 141) 10
In our view, there is no merit in petitioners' suggestion that private respondent did not make a full
disclosure of his medical history. The records reveal that private respondent was deployed by
petitioners twice already. The first was in 1989. When his contract was completed, petitioners
without any hitch again deployed him, despite of the fact that he had already undergone
pacemaker surgery in 1986. Twice, private respondent underwent the required medical and
physical examination. Twice, he was certified physically fit by the petitioners' own accredited
physician. Twice, too, he was hired and deployed by them. All these clearly belie the allegation
of misrepresentation and non-disclosure. Petitioners cannot now deny the sickness and disability
benefits private respondent deserves.
Petitioners aver that the illness of the private respondent was not contracted during his
employment nor was it aggravated by his work. They relied on Kirit, Sr., et al. vs. GSIS, 187
SCRA 224, 226 (1990), which says that presumptions of compensability and aggravation have
been abandoned under the compensation scheme in the present Labor Code.
It will be noted that the claim for sickness and permanent disability benefits of the private
respondent arose from the stipulations on the standard format contract of employment between
him and petitioner Seagull per Circular No. 2, Series of 1984 of POEA. This circular was
intended for all parties involved in the employment of Filipino seamen on board any ocean-going
vessel. Significantly, under the contract, compensability of the illness or death of seamen need
not depend on whether the illness was work connected or not. 11 It is sufficient that the illness
occurred during the term of the employment contract. It will also be recalled that petitioners
admitted that private respondent's work as a radio officer exposed him to different climates and
unpredictable weather, which could trigger a heart attack or heart failure. 12
Even assuming that the ailment of the worker was contracted prior to his employment, this still
would not deprive him of compensation benefits. For what matters is that his work had
contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his
eventual death. 13 Neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the employee
must have been in perfect health at the time he contracted the disease. A worker brings with him
possible infirmities in the course of his employment, and while the employer is not the insurer of
the health of the employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If
the disease is the proximate cause of the employee's death for which compensation is sought, the
previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant, and recovery may be had for said
death, independently of any pre-existing disease. 14
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission dated November 24, 1995, is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Seagull Ship Management Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seagull Ship Management Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seagull Ship Management Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

SEAGULL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT, INC., and DOMINION

V. . . . IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR

You might also like