Wallem Vs Tanawan

1/28/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 679
G.R. No. 160444.August 29, 2012.*
WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. ERNESTO

C. TANAWAN, respondent.
Labor Law; Seafarers; Philippine Overseas Employment

Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contracts; While the
seafarers and their employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) rules and
regulations require that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard terms
and conditions of the seafarers employment in foreign ocean-going vessels,
be integrated in every seafarers contract.The employment of seafarers,
and its incidents, including claims for death benets, are governed by the
contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired. Such contracts have
the force of law between the parties as long as their stipulations are not
contrary
______________________________
*FIRST DIVISION.
256
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Tanawan
to law, morals, public order or public policy. While the seafarers and their
employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the POEA rules and
regulations require that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard terms
and conditions of the seafarers employment in foreign ocean-going vessels,
be integrated in every seafarers contract.
Same; Same; Company-Designated Physicians; The one tasked to
determine whether the seafarer suffers from any disability or is t to work is
the company-designated physician. As such, the seafarer must submit
himself to the company-designated physician for a post employment medical
examination within three days from his repatriation.The one tasked to
determine whether the seafarer suffers from any disability or is t to work is
the company-designated physician. As such, the seafarer must submit
himself to the company-designated physician for a post employment
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159e37bc701da56eae6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
medical examination within three days from his repatriation. But the
assessment of the company- designated physician is not nal, binding or
conclusive on the seafarer, the labor tribunals, or the courts. The seafarer
may request a second opinion and consult a physician of his choice
regarding his ailment or injury, and the medical report issued by the
physician of his choice shall also be evaluated on its inherent merit by the
labor tribunal and the court.
Same; Same; Same; Disability Benets; Even in the absence of an
ofcial nding by the company-designated physician to the effect that the
seafarer suffers a disability and is unt for sea duty, the seafarer may still be
declared to be suffering from a permanent disability if he is unable to work
for more than 120 days. What clearly determines the seafarers entitlement
to permanent disability benets is his inability to work for more than 120
days.That the company-designated physician did not render any nding
of disability is of no consequence. Disability should be understood more on
the loss of earning capacity rather than on the medical signicance of the
disability. Even in the absence of an ofcial nding by the company-
designated physician to the effect that the seafarer suffers a disability and is
unt for sea duty, the seafarer may still be declared to be suffering from a
permanent disability if he is unable to work for more than 120 days. What
clearly determines the seafarers entitlement to permanent disability benets
is his inability to work for more than 120 days. Although the company-
designated physician
257
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 257
already declared the seafarer t to work, the seafarers disability is still

considered permanent and total if such declaration is made belatedly (that is,
more than 120 days after repatriation).
Same; Same; Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
Standard Employment Contracts; Under the 1996 POEA SEC, it was
enough to show that the injury or illness was sustained during the term of
the contract.Under the 1996 POEA SEC, it was enough to show that the
injury or illness was sustained during the term of the contract. The Court has
declared that the unqualied phrase during the term found in Section
20(B) thereof covered all injuries or illnesses occurring during the lifetime
of the contract.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Lloyd Rey A. Nonato for petitioner.
Romulo P. Valmores for respondent.
BERSAMIN,J.:
A seafarer, to be entitled to disability benets, must prove that
the injury was suffered during the term of the employment, and must
submit himself to the company-designated physician for evaluation
within three days from his repatriation.
The Case
For review on certiorari is the decision promulgated on

November 29, 2002,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) an-
______________________________
1Rollo, pp. 35-46; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (later Presiding
Justice and a Member of the Court, but now retired), with Associate Justice Remedios
Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Edgardo E. Sundiam (deceased) concurring.
258

nulled the decision rendered on June 13, 2001 by the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated the decision dated
January 21, 2000 of the Labor Arbiter.
Antecedents
On May 12, 1997, the petitioner, then acting as local agent of

Scandic Ship Management, Ltd., engaged Ernesto C. Tanawan as
dozer driver assigned to the vessel, M/V Eastern Falcon, for a period
of 12 months. Under the employment contract, Tanawan was entitled
to a basic salary of US$355.00/month, overtime pay of
US$2.13/hour, and vacation leave pay of US$35.00/month.2
On November 22, 1997, while Tanawan was assisting two co-
workers in lifting a steel plate aboard the vessel, a corner of the steel
plate touched the oor of the deck, causing the sling to slide and the
steel plate to hit his left foot. He was brought to a hospital in
Malaysia where his left foot was placed in a cast. His x-ray
examination showed he had suffered multiple left toes fracture (i.e.,
left 2nd proximal phalanx and 3rd to 5th metatarsal).3
Following Tanawans repatriation on November 28, 1997, his
designated physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, conducted the evaluation
and treatment of his foot injury at Metropolitan Hospital, the
designated hospital. Tanawan was initially evaluated on December
1, 1997 and was referred to Metropolitan Hospitals orthopedic
surgeon who reviewed the x-rays and advised Tanawan to continue
with his immobilization to allow good fracture healing.4
On December 22, 1997, Tanawans cast was removed, and he

was advised to start motion exercises and partial weight
______________________________
2Records, p. 2.
3Id., at p. 27.
4Id., at p. 29.
259
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 259

bearing.5 He underwent physical therapy for two months at the St.

Camillus Hospital.6 On March 26, 1998, the orthopedic surgeon
suggested pinning and bone grafting of the 5th metatarsal bone after
noticing that there was no callous formation there.7
On April 7, 1998, Tanawan underwent bone grafting and was
discharged on the next day.8 On May 21, 1998, conformably with
the orthopedic surgeons ndings, Dr. Lim reported that Tanawan
was already asymptomatic and pronounced him t to work.9 It is
noted that from November 30, 1997 until April 1998, Tanawan was
paid sickness allowances equivalent to his monthly salary.10
On March 31, 1998, while Tanawan was still under treatment by
Dr. Lim, he also sought the services of Dr. Rimando Saguin to assess
the extent of his disability due to the same injury. Dr. Saguin
categorized the foot injury as Grade 12 based on the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Schedule of
Disability.11
On August 25, 1998, due to the worsening condition of his right
eye, Tanawan also went to the clinic of Dr. Hernando D. Bunuan for
a disability evaluation, not of his foot injury but of an eye injury that
he had supposedly sustained while on board the vessel.12
Tanawans position paper narrated how he had sustained the eye
injury, stating that on October 5, 1997, the Chief Engineer directed
him to spray-paint the loader of the vessel; that as he was opening a
can of thinner, some of the thinner
______________________________
5Id., at p. 30.
6Id., at pp. 68-69.
7Id., at p. 33.
8Id., at p. 34.
9Id., at p. 43.
10Id., at pp. 37-40.
11Id., at p. 71.
12Id., at p. 72.
260

accidentally splashed into his right eye; that he was rushed to the
Ofce of the Chief Mate for emergency treatment; and that the ship
doctor examined him ve days later, and told him that there was
nothing to worry about and that he could continue working.13
Dr. Bunuan referred him to Dr. Tim Jimenez, an ophthalmologist,
who diagnosed him to be suffering from a retinal detachment with
vitreous hemorrhage on the right eye for which surgical repair was
needed. Dr. Bunuan categorized his disability as Grade 7.14
On November 26, 1998, Tanawan led in the Arbitration Branch
of the NLRC a complaint for disability benets for the foot and eye
injuries, sickness allowance, damages and attorneys fees against the
petitioner and its foreign principal.
In its answer, the petitioner denied Tanawans claim for disability
benets for his foot injury, averring that he was already t to work
based on Dr. Lims certication;15 that he did not sustain the alleged
eye injury while on board the vessel because no such injury was
reported;16 that the claim for sickness allowance was already paid
when he underwent treatment.17
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On January 21, 2000, the Labor Arbiter ruled in Tanawans favor,

viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
______________________________
13Id., at p. 55.
14Id., at p. 72.
15Id., at p. 19.
16Id., at p. 75.
17Id., at p. 18.
261
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 261

1)ORDERING respondents to pay the complainant, jointly and severally, in

Philippine Currency, based on the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of
actual payment, the following amounts representing the complainants
disability benets:
a)Foot injury US$5,225.00

b)Eye injury US$20,900.00
2)AND ORDERING, FURTHERMORE, respondents to pay the complainant
attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards
granted to the aforesaid employee under this Decision.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.18
The Labor Arbiter found sufcient evidence to support

Tanawans claim for disability benets for the foot and eye injuries,
according credence to the medical certicate issued by Dr. Saguin
classifying Tanawans foot injury as Grade 12; Tanawans
declarationwhich was not contradicted by the petitionerthat
some paint thinner splashed into his right eye on October 5, 1997;
and the letter of Dr. Bunuan to the effect that the disability due to the
eye injury was classied as Grade 7.
The Labor Arbiter discounted Dr. Lims certication declaring
Tanawan t to work on the ground that Dr. Lim had no personal
knowledge of such fact because it had been the orthopedic surgeon
who had made the nding; hence, the certication was hearsay
evidence, not deserving of any probative weight. The Labor Arbiter
denied Tanawans claim for sickness allowance in light of the
showing that such claim had already been paid.19

______________________________
18Id., at pp. 108-109.
19Id., at p. 108.
262

The petitioner appealed to the NLRC. In its appeal, the petitioner

contended that Dr. Saguins certication was issued on March 31,
1998 while Tanawan was still under treatment by Dr. Lim;20 that the
disability grading by Dr. Saguin had no factual or legal basis
considering that Tanawan was later declared t to work on May 21,
1998 by the company- designated physician, the only physician
authorized to determine whether a seafarer was t to work or was
disabled;21 that the medical report of the orthopedic surgeon who
actually treated Tanawan reinforced Dr. Lims t to work
certication, because the report stated that Tanawan was already
asymptomatic and could go back to work anytime;22 that Tanawan
failed to discharge his burden of proof to establish that he had
sustained the injury while on board the vessel; that Tanawan did not
submit himself to a post- employment medical examination for the
eye injury and did not mention such injury while he underwent
treatment for his foot injury, an indication that the eye injury was
only an afterthought;23 that there was also no evidence that the
alleged eye injury was directly caused by the thinner, the
certication of Dr. Bunuan not having stated its cause;24 and that a
certication from an eye specialist, a certain Dr. Willie Angbue-Te,
showed the contrary, because the certication attested that the
splashing of some thinner on the eye would not in any way lead to
vitreous hemorrhage with retinal detachment, which was usually
caused by trauma, pre-existing lattice degeneration, diabetic
retinopathy, high myopia, retinal tear or retinal holes.25
______________________________
20Id., at p. 272.
21Id., at p. 120.
22Id., at p. 128.
23Id., at pp. 122-123.
24Id., at p. 270.
25Id., at p. 275.
263
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 263

Ruling of the NLRC

On June 13, 2001, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters
decision and dismissed Tanawans complaint for lack of
merit.26After the NLRC denied his motion for reconsideration,27
Tanawan commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On November 29, 2002, the CA rendered its assailed decision in

favor of Tanawan,28 whose dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, having found that public respondent NLRC committed

grave abuse of discretion, the Court hereby ANNULS the assailed Decision
and Resolution and REINSTATES the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated
January 21, 2000.
SO ORDERED.
The CA discoursed that what was being compensated in

disability compensation was not the injury but the incapacity to
work; that considering that the foot injury incapacitated Tanawan
from further working as dozer driver for the petitioners principal, he
should be given disability benets; that Dr. Lims certication had
no probative weight because it was self- serving and biased in favor
of the petitioner; that Tanawans claim for the eye injury was
warranted because the injury occurred during the term of the

employment contract; and that an injury, to be compensable, need
not be work-connected.29
______________________________
26Id., at p. 289.
27Id., at p. 318.
28Rollo, pp. 45-46.
29Id., at pp. 43-45.
264

On October 17, 2003, the CA denied the petitioners motion for

reconsideration for lack of merit.30
Issues
Hence, this appeal, with the petitioner tendering the following

issues:
1.WHETHER OR NOT THE STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF
THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION
(POEA) IS THE LAW BETWEEN THE SEAMAN AND THE MANNING
AGENT.
2.WHETHER OR NOT A COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN
POSSESSES THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DECLARE A SEAMAN FIT
OR DISABLED UNDER THE LAW.
3.WHETHER OR NOT A SEAMAN CAN CLAIM DISABILITY BENEFITS
AFTER HE FAILED TO REPORT HIS ALLEGED INJURY WITHIN THE
THREE-DAY REGLEMENTARY PERIOD AS REQUIRED AND
31
IMPOSED BY LAW.
The petitioner insists that under the POEA Standard Employment

Contract (POEA SEC), which governed the relationship between the
seafarer and his manning agent, it was the company-designated
physician who would assess and establish the tness or disability of
the repatriated seaman; that Tanawans claim for any disability
benet had no basis because the company-designated physician
already pronounced him t to work; that Tanawan should have
reported the eye injury to the company-designated physician within
three working days upon his arrival in the country pursuant to Sec.
20(B)(3) of the POEA SEC; that his non-reporting now barred
______________________________
30Id., at p. 48.
31Id., at p. 11.
265
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 265

Tanawan from recovering disability benet for the eye injury; that to
ignore the application of the 3-day reglementary period would lead
to the indiscriminate ling of baseless claims against the manning
agencies and their foreign principals; and that more probative weight
should be accorded to the certication of Dr. Lim about the foot
injury and the opinion of Dr. Angbue-Te on the alleged eye injury.
On the other hand, Tanawan submits that the determination of the
tness or disability of a seafarer was not the exclusive prerogative of
the company-designated physician; and that his failure to undergo a
post-employment medical examination for the eye injury within
three days from his repatriation did not bar his claim for disability
benets.32
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.

The employment of seafarers, and its incidents, including claims
for death benets, are governed by the contracts they sign every time
they are hired or rehired. Such contracts have the force of law
between the parties as long as their stipulations are not contrary to
law, morals, public order or public policy. While the seafarers and
their employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the POEA
rules and regulations require that the POEA SEC, which contains the
standard terms and conditions of the seafarers employment in
foreign ocean-going vessels, be integrated in every seafarers
contract.33
The pertinent provision of the 1996 POEA SEC, which was in
effect at the time of Tanawans employment, was Section 20(B),
which reads:
______________________________
32Id., at pp. 131-135.
33Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Delgado, G.R. No. 168210, June 17,
2008, 554 SCRA 590, 596.
266

SECTION20.COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

xxx
B.COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS:
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers injury or illness
during the term of his contract are as follows:
1.The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the
time he is on board the vessel;
2.If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a
foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical,
serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging
until the seafarer is declared t to work or to be repatriated.
However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention
arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the
employer until such time he is declared t or the degree of his disability has
been established by the company-designated physician.
3.Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is
entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is
declared t to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed
by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period
exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post- employment
medical examination by a company-designated physician within three
working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to
do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is
deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory
reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the
above benets.
It is clear from the provision that the one tasked to determine

whether the seafarer suffers from any disability or is t to work is
the company designated physician. As such, the seafarer must
submit himself to the company-designated physician for a post
employment medical examination within
267
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 267

three days from his repatriation. But the assessment of the company-
designated physician is not nal, binding or conclusive on the
seafarer, the labor tribunals, or the courts. The seafarer may request
a second opinion and consult a physician of his choice regarding his
ailment or injury, and the medical report issued by the physician of
his choice shall also be evaluated on its inherent merit by the labor
tribunal and the court.34
Tanawan submitted himself to Dr. Lim, the company-designated
physician, for a medical examination on December 1, 1997, which
was within the 3-day reglementary period from his repatriation. The
medical examination conducted focused on Tanawans foot injury,
the cause of his repatriation. Nothing was mentioned of an eye
injury. Dr. Lim treated Tanawan for the foot injury from December
1, 1997 until May 21, 1998, when Dr. Lim declared him t to work.
Within that period that lasted 172 days, Tanawan was unable to
perform his job, an indication of a permanent disability. Under the
law, there is permanent disability if a worker is unable to perform his
job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the
use of any part of his body.35
That the company-designated physician did not render any
nding of disability is of no consequence. Disability should be
understood more on the loss of earning capacity rather than on the
medical signicance of the disability.36 Even in the absence of an
ofcial nding by the company-designated physician to the effect
that the seafarer suffers a disability and is unt for sea duty, the
seafarer may still be declared to be suffering from a permanent
disability if he is unable to work
______________________________
34Records, p. 308.
35Palisoc v. Easways Marine Inc., G.R. No. 152273, September 11, 2007, 532
SCRA 585, 596-597.
36Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 159887, April 12,
2006, 487 SCRA 190, 213.
268

for more than 120 days.37 What clearly determines the seafarers
entitlement to permanent disability benets is his inability to work
for more than 120 days.38 Although the company-designated
physician already declared the seafarer t to work, the seafarers
disability is still considered permanent and total if such declaration
is made belatedly (that is, more than 120 days after repatriation).39
After the lapse of the 120-day period from his repatriation,
Tanawan consulted Dr. Saguin, his own private physician, for the
purpose of having an evaluation of the degree of his disability. At
that time, he was due to undergo bone grafting and pinning of the
5th metatarsal bone, as Dr. Lim recommended. Dr. Saguins nding
that Tanawan had a Grade 12 disability was, therefore, explicable
and plausible.
On the other hand, Tanawans claim for disability benets due to
the eye injury was already barred by his failure to report the injury
and to have his eye examined by a company-designated physician.40
The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury within
three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to

determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real
cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove
difcult.41 To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative
repercussions, like opening the oodgates to a limitless number of
seafarers claiming disability benets, or causing unfairness to
______________________________
37Palisoc v. Easways Marine Inc., supra, note 35; Valenzona v. Fair Shipping
Corporation, G.R. No. 176884, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 642.
38Palisoc v. Easways Marine Inc.,supra.
39 Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation,supra, note 37; Oriental
Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol, G.R. No. 186289, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA
352, 383-384.
40Maunlad Transport, Inc. v. Manigo, Jr.,G.R. No. 161416, June 13, 2008, 554
SCRA 446, 459.
41Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag, G.R. No. 191491, December 14, 2011, 662
SCRA 670, 680.
269
VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 269

the employer who would have difculty determining the cause of a

claimants illness because of the passage of time. The employer
would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims.42
Tanawan did not report the eye injury either to the petitioner or to
Dr. Lim while he was undergoing treatment for the foot injury.
Curiously, he did not even offer any explanation as to why he had
his eye examined only on August 25, 1998, or after almost nine
months from his repatriation.
Under the 1996 POEA SEC,43 it was enough to show that the
injury or illness was sustained during the term of the contract. The
Court has declared that the unqualied phrase during the term
found in Section 20(B) thereof covered all injuries or illnesses
occurring during the lifetime of the contract.44
It is the oft-repeated rule, however, that whoever claims
entitlement to the benets provided by law should establish his right
to the benets by substantial evidence.45 As such, Tanawan must
present concrete proof showing that he acquired or contracted the
injury or illness that resulted to his disability during the term of his
employment contract.46 Proof of this circumstance was particularly
crucial in view of his non-reporting of the injury to the petitioner.
Yet, he did not present any proof of having sustained the eye injury
during the term of his contract. All that he submitted was his bare
allegation that his eye had been splashed with some thinner
______________________________
42Id., at p. 681.
43The POEA SEC was amended in 2000 to include a proviso that the injury or
illness must be workrelated.
44Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,supra, note 36, p. 205.
45Cootauco v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 184722, March 15,
2010, 615 SCRA 529, 545.
46NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 161104, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 595, 606-607.
270

while he was on board the vessel. He also did not adduce any proof
demonstrating that the splashing of thinner could have caused the
retinal detachment with vitreous hemorrhage. At the very least, he
should have adduced proof that would tie the accident to the eye
injury. We note at this juncture that even the certication by Dr.
Bunuan provided no information on the possible cause of the eye
injury.
Consequently, the claim for disability benet for the eye injury is
denied in view of Tanawans non-reporting of the injury to the
petitioner and of his failure to prove that the injury was sustained
during the term of his employment.
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition
for review; and DELETES the award of US$20,900.00 as disability
benets for the eye injury.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (C.J.), Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes,

JJ., concur.
Petition partially granted.
Notes.While it is a condition sine qua non to the ling of claim

for disability benet that, within three working days from his
repatriation, the claimant submits himself to medical examination by
a company-designated physician, the assessment of said physician is
not nal, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or
the courts. (Maunlad Transport, Inc. vs. Manigo, Jr., 554 SCRA 446
[2008])
A seafarer may claim disability benets under Section 20(B) of
the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
Standard Contract of Employment for Seafarers only if he suffers a
work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract.
(Bandila Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Dubduban, 601 SCRA 264

[2009])
o0o
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wallem Vs Tanawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wallem Vs Tanawan

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Wallem Vs Tanawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/28/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 679

G.R. No. 160444.August 29, 2012.*

WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. ERNESTO

Labor Law; Seafarers; Philippine Overseas Employment

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Tanawan

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 257

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Tanawan

already declared the seafarer t to work, the seafarers disability is still

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

For review on certiorari is the decision promulgated on

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On May 12, 1997, the petitioner, then acting as local agent of

On December 22, 1997, Tanawans cast was removed, and he

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 259

bearing.5 He underwent physical therapy for two months at the St.

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On January 21, 2000, the Labor Arbiter ruled in Tanawans favor,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 261

1)ORDERING respondents to pay the complainant, jointly and severally, in

a)Foot injury US$5,225.00

The Labor Arbiter found sufcient evidence to support

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The petitioner appealed to the NLRC. In its appeal, the petitioner

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 263

Ruling of the NLRC

On November 29, 2002, the CA rendered its assailed decision in

WHEREFORE, having found that public respondent NLRC committed

The CA discoursed that what was being compensated in

warranted because the injury occurred during the term of the

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On October 17, 2003, the CA denied the petitioners motion for

Hence, this appeal, with the petitioner tendering the following

The petitioner insists that under the POEA Standard Employment

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 265

The petition is partly meritorious.

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SECTION20.COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

It is clear from the provision that the one tasked to determine

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 267

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to

VOL. 679, AUGUST 29, 2012 269

the employer who would have difculty determining the cause of a

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sereno (C.J.), Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes,

Petition partially granted.

Notes.While it is a condition sine qua non to the ling of claim

(Bandila Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Dubduban, 601 SCRA 264

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like