by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
Marcelo M. Corpuz, Jr. vs. Gerwil Crewing Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 205725 (18 January 2021)
Failure to Submit to Post-Employment Medical Examination a Waiver to Disability Benefits
On 18 January 2021, the Supreme Court issued a Decision in the case of G.R. No. 205725 entitled “Marcelo M. Corpuz vs. Gerwil Crewing Philippines, Inc.” penned by then Associate Justice (now Chief Justice) Alexander Gesmundo. The case was filed by Marcelo M. Corpuz, an Able Seaman, hired by Gerwil Crewing Philippines to work for vessel MT Azarakhsh of Echo Cargo & Shipping LLC. Mr. Corpuz was deployed on 05 August 2008 for a 12-month contract. However, on 17 May 2009, he was brought to Sheikh Khalifa Medical City in the United Arab Emirates due to severe headache and vomiting after he allegedly sustained a fall while lifting heavy motor parts.
Mr. Corpuz was repatriated on 09 September 2009. He claims to have reported to their agency the next day and that Chief Executive Officer, Rommel S. Valdez, supposedly denied his request for medical assistance on the ground that the illness was not work-related. Mr. Corpuz sought medical consultation at Sta. Rosa Medical Center and was declared permanently unfit for sea duty. Hence, Mr. Corpuz filed a case before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Mr. Corpuz. The National Labor Relations Commission, however, reversed the ruling. Mr. Corpuz elevated the ruling of the NLRC before the Court of Appeals, but his petition was dismissed, hence, his resort to the Supreme Court.
In the Decision, the Supreme Court restated the basic rule on disability claims caused by work-related illnesses or injuries. The Court held that deemed written in every contract of a seafarer is the 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract. Par. 3, Section 20 (B) thereof states that “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 compliance.” The same provision also provides that “failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.”
The case also discussed an earlier ruling of the Court in Dionio vs. ND Shipping Agency and Allied Services, G.R. No. 231096 (15 August 2018), wherein another exception to the rule of post-employment examination by a company-designated physician, i.e., when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician. In the instant case, the Supreme Court did not believe on the assertion of Mr. Corpuz that he reported to his agency the day after he arrived in the country. The agency was able to adduce as evidence the logbook of the agency and there was no name of Mr. Corpuz in the entries from 04 September 2009 until 06 October 2009:
“In here, respondent submitted copies of its visitor logbook to disprove petitioner’s claim that he visited their office immediately after his repatriation. Notable that petitioner’s name does not appear in the entries of said logbook from September 4, 2009 until October 6, 2009. Faced with this evidence, petitioner remained silent and did not rebut or address the same in his pleadings. Between petitioner’s bare and unsupported allegations and the documentary evidence submitted by respondents, We are more inclined to accord weight to the latter. Thus, We find petitioner’s failure to comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination to be due to his own omission and not through respondent’s fault.
x x x x x x x x x
To reiterate, the three-day period form return of the seafarer or sign-off rom the vessel, whether to undergo a post-employment medical examination or report the seafarer’s physical incapacity, should always be complied with to determine whether the injury or illness is work-related. Hence, petitioner’s failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim disability benefits and proved fatal to his cause.”
Many of our seafarers do not read the fine prints of their contract, much more the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Hence, many of those who met accidents and sustained career-ending injuries or those who contracted work-related illnesses were denied of justice by mere technicality. In my personal experience with my father who thrice met accidents during his stint as a seafarer, most of them receive no assistance upon arrival. The most common and immediate instinct of these seafarers would be to go home to their respective provinces for emotional comfort, more than seeking further medical attention. In the case of Mr. Corpuz, he was really injured while working onboard. But the three-day short deadline for a seafarer to see the company-designated physician injured him twice and forever left a scar of injustice, more painful than his scars from his injuries.