MUSNIT vs. SEA STAR SHIPPING CORPORATION (Labor Law Review)

G.R. No. 182623               December 4, 2009 DIONISIO M. MUSNIT, Petitioner, 

vs.

SEA STAR SHIPPING CORPORATION and SEA STAR SHIPPING CORPORATION, LTD.,Respondents.

FACTS:

Dionisio M. Musnit is chief cook on board the vessel M/V Navajo Princess.

Before his contract expired, petitioner, sometime in August 2002, while on board the vessel, felt a throbbing pain in his chest and shortening of breath which made him feel as if he were about to fall. By his claim, he reported his condition to his officer who ignored it, however. As the pain persisted, he resorted to pain relievers.

Upon completion of his contract, petitioner was repatriated to the Philippines on October 31, 2002 following which he, again by his claim, immediately reported to Sea Star's office and informed it of his condition, but that he was never referred to a doctor for consultation.6

Seven months after his repatriation, petitioner sought re-employment with Sea Star. During his pre-employment medical examination on May 26, 2003 at the American Outpatient Clinic, petitioner was diagnosed with "error of refraction, hyperglycemia, cardiac dysrhythmia, and atrial fibrillation with rapid value response"7 on account of which he was declared unfit for sea duties and was denied further deployment.

Petitioner underwent further medical examination but still declared him unfit to board ship and work as a seaman in any capacity. 

Petitioner thereupon lodged a claim for disability benefits from Sea Star which denied the same, however, drawing him to file a complaint against it, for Medical Reimbursement, Sickness Allowance, Permanent Disability Benefits, Compensatory Damages, Moral Damages, Exemplary Damages, and Attorney's fees.

ISSUE:

Whether Musnit is entitled for relief sought.

RULING:

NO.

Section 20(B) provides for the liabilities of the employer only when the seafarer suffers from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his employment.34

Petitioner claims to have reported his illness to an officer once on board the vessel during the course of his employment.35 The records are bereft, however, of any documentary proof that he had indeed referred his illness to a nurse or doctor in order to avail of proper treatment. It thus becomes apparent that he was repatriated to the Philippines, not on account of any illness or injury, but in view of the completion of his contract.

But even assuming that petitioner was repatriated for medical reasons, he failed to submit himself to the company-designated doctor in accordance with the post-employment medical examination requirement under the above-quoted paragraph 3 of Section 20(B) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Failure to comply with this requirement which is a sine qua non bars the filing of claim for disability benefits.36

All told, the rule is that under Section 20-B(3) of the 1996 POEA-SEC, it is mandatory for a claimant to be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation. The unexplained omission of this requirement will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits.37 (emphasis and underscoring supplied).