Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc.

vs Utanes

Facts:

On November 13, 2014, petitioner, Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. in behalf of its foreign principal, Goodwood Ship
Management, Pte., Ltd., hired respondent, Utanes as Oiler on board MT G.C. Fuzhou for a period of nine months. He was
declared fit for sea duty in his pre-employment medical examination (PEME) after ticking the “No” boxes opposite any
existing diseases specifically “High Blood Pressure” and “Heart Disease Vascular/Chest Pain” under the medical history
section.

On January 25, 2015, Utanes suddenly felt severe chest pain, accompanied by dizziness and weakness while on board the
ship. He was made to endure his condition until his repatriation on May 18, 2015. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Utanes was
referred to Marine Medical Services and was subjected to various tests and medical treatment for coronary artery disease.
During the course of his treatment by the company-designated physicians, sometime in September 2015, Utanes disclosed
that, as early as 2009, he was diagnosed with Coronary Artery Disease, for which he underwent Percutaneous Coronary
Intervention of the left anterior descending artery. Consequently, after five months of treatment from May 2015, the
company doctors discontinued his treatment. As a result, the respondent consulted an independent cardiologist, Dr. May S.
Donato-Tan, who concluded that the nature and extent of Utanes’ illness rendered him permanently and totally unfit to work
as a seaman.

Such a result prompted the respondent to file a complaint for disability benefits, medical expenses, damages and attorney’s
fees against the petitioner.

In a decision dated June 15, 2016, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Utanes and awarded him total and permanent
disability benefits. It was declared that Trans-Global is considered to have waived its right to assert non-liability for disability
benefits to Utanes because it discontinued to extend treatment despite the belated disclosure of his existing Coronary Artery
Disease. The treatment constitutes an implied admission of compensability and work-relatedness of Utanes’ lingering cardio-
vascular illness. Likewise, Trans-Global failed to issue a final assessment of Utanes’ illness or fitness to work, which failure
deemed Utanes totally and permanently disabled.

The petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the arbiter’s ruling on the
ground that the illness occurred within the duration of his contract and his treatment lasted for more than 120 days. The
petitioners moved for reconsideration, but was denied.

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and the motion for
reconsideration. Consequently, petitioners seek recourse before the Supreme Court alleging that the Court of Appeals
committed serious errors of law in upholding the NLRC’s decision.

Issue:

W.O.N. The respondent’s illness resulted from his work as a seaman and had contributed to the development of his
condition rendering him permanently disabled and his deliberate concealment of his coronary artery disease would entitle
him to permanent and total disability benefits from Trans-Global.

Ruling:

The petition is meritorious.

Although findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded finality and
respect, there are, however, recognized exceptions to this general rule, such is the instant case, where there is a manifest
mistake in the inference made from the findings of fact and judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.

Upon review of the case, the entitlement of seafarers on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only
by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The provisions of Labor Code Articles 197 to 199 in relation to Section 2
(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-
Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, if any, and the employment
agreement between the seafarer and the employer are pertinent. Section 20, paragraph E of the POEA-SEC clearly provides

RADC, 2023
that “a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness of condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination
(PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits.”
The rule seeks to penalize seafarers who conceal medical information in order to pass PEME, in fact, such concealment
makes a just cause for termination of employment. Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, there is a “pre-existing illness or condition” if
prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following is present: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment
was given for such continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer has been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness
or condition but failed to disclose it during the pre-employment medical examination, and such cannot be diagnosed during
such examination.

Upon review of the respondent’s records with the petitioner, prior to his employment, his signed PEME acknowledging the
truthfulness of the certificate, indicated that he was not suffering from any medical condition likely to be aggravated by
service at sea or which may render him unfit for sea service. Likewise, it did not show that he had heart
disease/vascular/chest pain, high blood pressure, or that he underwent treatment for any ailment and was taking any
medication. Evidently, Utanes obscured his pre-existing cardiac ailment prior to his contract of employment, which
consequently disqualifies him from disability benefits. His disclosure of his existing Coronary Artery Disease during the
treatment by the company-doctors does not cancel out his deception of a concealment of a substantial information
concerning his medical condition.

Section 20 (E) of POEA-SEC states that “ A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the PEME
shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits. This is likewise a just
cause for termination of employment and imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions.” The Court on many occasions
disqualified seafarers from claiming disability benefits on account of fraudulent misrepresentation arising from their
concealment of a pre-existing medical condition, such as the case at hand. For knowingly, concealing his history of coronary
artery disease during the PEME, Utanes committed fraudulent misrepresentation which unconditionally bars his right to
receive any disability compensation from petitioners.

In addition to this, the respondent failed to establish sufficient evidence to show how his working conditions caused or
aggravated his illness. In the general statements in his Position Paper – “ in the performance of Complainant’s principal duty
and responsibility, he was exposed to the harsh condition and the perils at sea. He was also under severe stress while being
away from his family and suffering from over fatigue while doing his duties and responsibilities on board the vessel due to
long hours of work” – were not validated by any written document or other proof given. Neither was any expert medical
opinion presented regarding the cause of his condition.

Although the respondent’s illness of coronary artery disease is listed under cardio-vascular disease as occupational disease
under Section 32-A, paragraph 11 of the POEA-SEC, the respondent must have shown compliance with the conditions as
enumerated in the said section. Absence in this case were the conditions enumerated in Section 32-A for an illness to qualify
as an occupational disease, that is, Utanes’ illness being work-related, and therefore compensable.

On a final note, the Supreme Court emphasized that the constitutional policy is to provide full protection to labor is not
meant to be a sword to oppress employers. Justice is for the deserving and must be dispensed within the light of
established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence. The Court’s commitment to the cause of labor is not a
lopsided undertaking. It cannot and does not prevent us from sustaining an employer when it is in the right.

For the stated reasons, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are
reversed and set aside. The complaint filed by Magno T. Utanes against Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. is dismissed.

RADC, 2023