Case Digest: Quizora v. Denholm Crew
G.R. No. 185412: November 16, 2011
GILBERT QUIZORA, Petitioner, DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
In 1992, Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc. (respondent company), a domestic manning agency that supplied manpower to Denklav Maritime Services, Ltd. (Denklav), a foreign maritime corporation, hired the services of Gilbert Quizora (petitioner) to work as a messman on board the international vessels of Denklav.
Based on Article 4.2 of the CBA entered into by and between the Association of Marine Officers and Seamen Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) and Denholm Ship Management (Singapore) Ltd., represented by Denklav, his contractual work as messman was considered terminated upon the expiration of each contract. After the end of a contract for a particular vessel, he would be given his next assignment on a different vessel.
After the expiration of his contract with "MV Leopard," petitioner was lined up for another assignment to a different vessel, but he was later disqualified for employment and declared unfit for sea duty after he was medically diagnosed to be suffering from varicose veins.
Petitioner demanded the payment of disability benefits, separation pay and reimbursement of medical expenses. His demands, however, were denied. He then submitted his claim before the AMOSUP, but it was likewise denied. Thereafter, he filed with same with the LA.
The LA, after due hearing, dismissed petitioners complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA's decision and ordered respondent company to pay petitioner his disability compensation in the amount of US$60,000.00.
Upon the denial of its MR in the NLRC, respondent company elevated the case to the CA.
On September 8, 2010, the CA rendered a decision setting aside the NLRC Resolution and reinstating the LA Decision.
GILBERT QUIZORA, Petitioner, DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
In 1992, Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc. (respondent company), a domestic manning agency that supplied manpower to Denklav Maritime Services, Ltd. (Denklav), a foreign maritime corporation, hired the services of Gilbert Quizora (petitioner) to work as a messman on board the international vessels of Denklav.
Based on Article 4.2 of the CBA entered into by and between the Association of Marine Officers and Seamen Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) and Denholm Ship Management (Singapore) Ltd., represented by Denklav, his contractual work as messman was considered terminated upon the expiration of each contract. After the end of a contract for a particular vessel, he would be given his next assignment on a different vessel.
After the expiration of his contract with "MV Leopard," petitioner was lined up for another assignment to a different vessel, but he was later disqualified for employment and declared unfit for sea duty after he was medically diagnosed to be suffering from varicose veins.
Petitioner demanded the payment of disability benefits, separation pay and reimbursement of medical expenses. His demands, however, were denied. He then submitted his claim before the AMOSUP, but it was likewise denied. Thereafter, he filed with same with the LA.
The LA, after due hearing, dismissed petitioners complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA's decision and ordered respondent company to pay petitioner his disability compensation in the amount of US$60,000.00.
Upon the denial of its MR in the NLRC, respondent company elevated the case to the CA.
On September 8, 2010, the CA rendered a decision setting aside the NLRC Resolution and reinstating the LA Decision.
Unsatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner raised before this Court the following
ISSUES:
HELD: The Court finds no merit in the petition.
NO PRESUMPTION THAT ILLNESS WAS CAUSED BY EMPLOYMENT
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11-00 thereby paved the way for the application of the POEA Standard Employment Contract based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055, series of 1996. Consequently, Jerry's employment contract with Coastal must conform to Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055, series of 1996, in determining compensability of Jerry's death. Thus, petitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. As he did so without solid proof of work-relation and work-causation or work-aggravation of his illness, the Court cannot provide him relief.
PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS ILLNESS WAS DUE TO HIS EMPLOYMENT
At any rate, granting that the provisions of the 2000 POEA-SEC apply, the disputable presumption provision in Section 20 (B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness. Here, petitioner failed to prove that his varicose veins arose out of his employment with respondent company. Except for his bare allegation that it was work-related, he did not narrate in detail the nature of his work as a messman aboard Denklav's vessels. No written document whatsoever was presented that would clearly validate his claim or visibly demonstrate that the working conditions on board the vessels he served increased the risk of acquiring varicose veins.
VARICOUS VEINS DID NOT CAUSE PETITIONER PERMANENT DISABILITY
While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondents illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory. Besides, it was not expressly stated in his medical diagnosis that his illness was equivalent to a total and permanent disability. Absent any indication, the Court cannot accommodate him.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether respondent has the burden to prove petitioner's illness is not work related,(2) Whether petitioners illness is work related,(3) Whether petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.
HELD: The Court finds no merit in the petition.
NO PRESUMPTION THAT ILLNESS WAS CAUSED BY EMPLOYMENT
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11-00 thereby paved the way for the application of the POEA Standard Employment Contract based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055, series of 1996. Consequently, Jerry's employment contract with Coastal must conform to Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055, series of 1996, in determining compensability of Jerry's death. Thus, petitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. As he did so without solid proof of work-relation and work-causation or work-aggravation of his illness, the Court cannot provide him relief.
PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS ILLNESS WAS DUE TO HIS EMPLOYMENT
At any rate, granting that the provisions of the 2000 POEA-SEC apply, the disputable presumption provision in Section 20 (B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness. Here, petitioner failed to prove that his varicose veins arose out of his employment with respondent company. Except for his bare allegation that it was work-related, he did not narrate in detail the nature of his work as a messman aboard Denklav's vessels. No written document whatsoever was presented that would clearly validate his claim or visibly demonstrate that the working conditions on board the vessels he served increased the risk of acquiring varicose veins.
VARICOUS VEINS DID NOT CAUSE PETITIONER PERMANENT DISABILITY
While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondents illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory. Besides, it was not expressly stated in his medical diagnosis that his illness was equivalent to a total and permanent disability. Absent any indication, the Court cannot accommodate him.
