Edukasyon Online Your Online Education Portal

Preliminarily, the Court notes that the Order dated March 14, 2018 issued by the NLRC dismissed with prejudice a previous claim for disability benefits filed by Davantes. The said dismissal of the previous claim was premised on Davantes's execution of "Release of All Rights, Pagpapaubaya sa Lahat ng Karapatan, and Affidavit of Claimant," all dated March 14, 2018 and issued in favor of respondents.

Quitclaims are generally frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. Nevertheless, the Court has recognized some legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker's claim.25 In order for a deed of release, waiver or quitclaim pertaining to an existing right to be valid, it must meet the following requirements: (1) that there was no fraud or deceit or coercion on the part of any of the parties; (2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is sufficient and reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

Here, the Court cannot sustain the validity of the quitclaim. As will be discussed below, there is merit in Davantes's supplication that the settlement amount of USD 20,900.00 is disproportionate to the disability benefits which he should have received.

The following pronouncement of the Court in Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., et al. is instructive:

As laypersons, seafarers cannot be expected to make completely accurate accounts of their state of health. Unaware of the nuances of medical conditions, they may, in good faith, make statements that turn out to be false. These honest mistakes do not negate compensability for disability arising from pre-existing illnesses shown to be aggravated by their working conditions. However, when a seafarer's proper knowledge of pre­-existing conditions and intent to deceive an employer are established, compensability is negated.

Further explained in Manansala is the conduct of PEME for the seafarers:

Prospective seafarers undergo a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) to determine if they are fit to work. Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, tasks the Department of Health to regulate the operations of clinics conducting PEMEs for migrant workers.

Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2007-0025, which was in effect when petitioner took his PEME, articulated guidelines on PEMEs for seafarers. It identified minimum test requirements, summarized as follows:

TEST	PEME "A" New Candidates	PEME "B" Serving Seafarers (below 40 years old)	PEME "C" Serving Seafarers (40 years old and above)
Audiometry	✓	✓	✓
Blood Uric Acid	X	X	✓
Chest X-Ray	✓	✓	✓
Color Perception Test	✓	✓	✓
Complete Blood Count and Blood Typing	✓	✓	✓
Complete Physical Examination and Medical History	✓	✓	✓
Dental Examination	✓	✓	✓
ECG	✓	X	✓
Fasting Blood Sugar	X	X	✓
Hepatitis B Screening	✓	✓	✓
HIV	OPTIONAL
Psychometric examinations	✓	✓	✓
Routine Stool	✓	✓	✓
Routine Urinalysis	✓	✓	✓
RPR	✓	✓	✓
Total cholesterol	X	X	✓
Triglyceride	X	X	✓
Visual Acuity	✓	✓	✓

As to their source, there are two categories of information obtained in PEMEs. First is information obtained from and colored by the prospective seafarer's opinion, i.e., information on medical history gained from probing questions asked to prospective seafarers and answered by them to the best of their knowledge. Second is information generated by procedures conducted by health professionals.

After the PEME, a prospective seafarer is found either: (1) fit for sea duty; (2) unfit for sea duty; or (3) temporarily unfit for sea duty. While PEME is not an in-depth examination of the actual status of a prospective seafarer's health, it must still fulfill its purpose of ascertaining capacity to safely perform tasks at sea.

Upon finding that the prospective seafarer is fit for sea duty, an employment contract may now be executed.

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. By law, the material statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code in relation to Rule X, Section 2(a) of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. By law, both the POEA-SEC and the CBA may cover the seafarer's employment.

Indeed, a CBA covers Davantes's employment. However, the schedule of payment of benefits therein refers only to permanent disability as a result of an accident or injury. Davantes did not claim total and permanent disability benefits on that basis. Hence, the application of the POEA-SEC.

The POEA-SEC, meanwhile, is deemed integrated with every agreement between the seafarer and his employer. Here, Davantes's employment contract with C.F. Sharp was executed in 2017 and is covered by the 2010 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships34 (2010 POEA-SEC).

Under Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, a seafarer is entitled to several compensation and benefits for any work-related illness or injury that he may have suffered during the term of the contract such as expenses for medical treatment, sickness allowance, and disability benefits.

On this note, the Court quotes with approval the CA ruling as regards Davantes's entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, to wit:

Based on the record, it is clear the [Davantes's] disability has become total and permanent because [C.F. Sharp] failed to personally give [Davantes] a final medical assessment within 120 or 240-day period from his repatriation. Record shows that the Grade 7 disability rating came from a letter dated December 4, 2017 issued by Melissa Co-Sia, M.D. addressed to a Dr. Lim and that there is nothing on record showing that [Davantes] received a final medical assessment before the end of the 120 or 240-day period.

Hence, by operation of law, Davantes shall be entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the 2010 POEA-SEC.

However, following Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition shall be disqualified from claiming any compensation and benefits.

As defined in the 2010 POEA-SEC, an illness is pre-existing if prior to the processing of the POEA-SEC, any of the following conditions are present: (1) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness or condition; or (2) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition, but failed to disclose it during the PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed during such examination.

Here, C.F. Sharp imputes that Davantes had knowingly concealed his pre-existing hypertension.

To knowingly conceal, it must be intentional. In Manansala, the Court took into consideration the acts of the seafarer subsequent to his repatriation. The seafarer in Manansala maintained before the company-designated physician that he had no history of either hypertension or diabetes, but declared otherwise before his personal physician. In fact, the seafarer's intention to conceal was manifested when he later admitted that he actually regularly takes maintenance medicine for his hypertension and diabetes. Showing bad faith, he coupled his concealment with an unsubstantiated claim that it was the examining physician who did not clearly record his answers in the PEME.

On the other hand, the case of Deocariza v. Fleet Management Services Phils., Inc., shows a picture of when a pre-existing illness was not knowingly concealed. In Deocariza, the Court ruled that there was no concealment since the diagnosis of "mechanical heart valves" could have been determined in the 2D echogram conducted during the PEME. Moreover, in Ranoa v. Anglo­-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc., the Court ruled that the seafarer's supposed admission of hypertension was not sufficient to prove that he had the intent to deceive such pre-existing illness.

As applied in the case at bar, a couple of circumstances warrant the conclusion that Davantes did not knowingly conceal his pre-existing hypertension. First. Unlike the seafarer in Manansala, Davantes immediately admitted to the company-designated physician that he consulted a doctor in 2010 for hypertension. While he was prescribed with maintenance medicine for hypertension, Davantes admitted that he did not take it regularly. Second. The following pieces of evidence presented by C.F. Sharp are insufficient to prove that Davantes intended to knowingly conceal his pre-existing hypertension: (1) the PEME dated August 31, 2016 showing that Davantes marked "NO" in the medical history portion covering high blood pressure; (2) that the foreign doctors who examined Davantes noted hypertension in his important personal history; and (3) notes from the company-designated physician's interview where Davantes stated that he was diagnosed with hypertension in 2010.

More importantly, Davantes was already 50 years old when the PEME was conducted on August 31, 2016. From the PEME guidelines quoted above, Davantes was required to undergo PEME C which involves more tests than PEME A and B. Specifically, Davantes had to undergo the following additional tests: Blood Uric Acid, ECG, Fasting Blood Sugar, Total cholesterol, and Triglyceride. Given this more rigorous PEME, it is unlikely not to detect hypertension or any symptom of it. Verily, had Davantes been suffering from a pre-existing hypertension at the time of his PEME, the same could have been easily detected by standard tests or procedures under PEME C, i.e., blood pressure, electrocardiogram, chest x-ray, and/or blood chemistry. A recommendation that a seafarer is "fit for sea duty" when standardized procedures would reveal otherwise, can only mean that the medical examiner failed to diligently screen the seafarer.

Undoubtedly, then, Davantes is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of USD 60,000.00. In addition, Davantes is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary awards following Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, which allows its recovery in actions to recover wages of laborers and actions for indemnity under employer's liability laws. Lastly, consistent with recent jurisprudence, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on the total monetary award.

QUESTION AND ANSWER: