G.R. No. 190172, April 07, 2010
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 190172, April 07, 2010 ]
RAMOLITO A. ENAJE, PETITIONER VS. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND/OR LEOPOLDO TENORIO AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD., RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated 07 April 2010:
G.R. No. 190172 - RAMOLITO A. ENAJE, petitioner -versus- GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and/or LEOPOLDO TENORIO and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD., respondents.
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 12, 2010
filed by petitioner Ramolito A. Enaje to set aside our Resolution of January
18, 2010 affirming the September 30, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 108838 denying the petitioner's claim for disability
benefits.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner argues that the requirement that the seafarer must report to the company designated physician within three working days from his return as provided under Section 20-B of Memorandum Circular No. 09; Series of 2000, otherwise known as the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), does not apply to the claim for disability benefits. The petitioner also claims that he was declared fit by the company-designated physician before he embarked on the respondent's ship.
We find no reversible error to merit reconsideration.
In German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,[1] the Court declared that: "In order to claim disability benefits under the Standard Employment Contract, it is the 'company-designated' physician who must proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the perm of the latter's employment." Although the company-designated physician's report will not be conclusive on the claimant, it is nevertheless a sine qua non requirement to the filing of a claim for disability benefit that the claimant seafarer be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation.[2]
The petitioner cannot also rely on the fact that he was found fit by the company-designated physician before he embarked on the respondent's ship. In Estate of Posedio Ortega v. Court of Appeals,[3] the Court held that the Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME), a requirement before one is hired and deployed as a seafarer, is not exploratory in nature; it was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The FEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service." It does not pronounce the applicant's real state of health.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose P. Perez and Jose C. Mendoza (designated additional member per S.O. No. 832 dated 30 March 2010 in lieu of Abad, J., on official business), Members, Second Division, this 7th day of April, 2010.
[1] 403 Phil. 572, 588 (2001)
[2] Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 163838, September 25,2008, 566 SCRA 338, 350.
[3] G.R. No. 175005, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 649, 660.
G.R. No. 190172 - RAMOLITO A. ENAJE, petitioner -versus- GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and/or LEOPOLDO TENORIO and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD., respondents.
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 12, 2010
filed by petitioner Ramolito A. Enaje to set aside our Resolution of January
18, 2010 affirming the September 30, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 108838 denying the petitioner's claim for disability
benefits.In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner argues that the requirement that the seafarer must report to the company designated physician within three working days from his return as provided under Section 20-B of Memorandum Circular No. 09; Series of 2000, otherwise known as the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), does not apply to the claim for disability benefits. The petitioner also claims that he was declared fit by the company-designated physician before he embarked on the respondent's ship.
We find no reversible error to merit reconsideration.
In German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,[1] the Court declared that: "In order to claim disability benefits under the Standard Employment Contract, it is the 'company-designated' physician who must proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the perm of the latter's employment." Although the company-designated physician's report will not be conclusive on the claimant, it is nevertheless a sine qua non requirement to the filing of a claim for disability benefit that the claimant seafarer be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation.[2]
The petitioner cannot also rely on the fact that he was found fit by the company-designated physician before he embarked on the respondent's ship. In Estate of Posedio Ortega v. Court of Appeals,[3] the Court held that the Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME), a requirement before one is hired and deployed as a seafarer, is not exploratory in nature; it was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The FEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service." It does not pronounce the applicant's real state of health.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose P. Perez and Jose C. Mendoza (designated additional member per S.O. No. 832 dated 30 March 2010 in lieu of Abad, J., on official business), Members, Second Division, this 7th day of April, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
[1] 403 Phil. 572, 588 (2001)
[2] Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 163838, September 25,2008, 566 SCRA 338, 350.
[3] G.R. No. 175005, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 649, 660.
