CASE DIGEST
PAL Maritime Corp. v.
Dalisay
G.R. Nos. 218115 & 218170, [January 27,
2021]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.
Sickness allowance; Concealment of Seafarer's Illness; Fit-to-work Order; Three-day mandatory reporting requirement
A seafarer who knowingly conceals a
pre-existing illness during the PEME is disqualified from claiming any
compensation and benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC.
Darwin Dalisay applied for shipboard employment with PAL Maritime Corporation in 2012. As part of the employment process, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) where he declared no history of ailments except for a past "Varicocoelectomy" operation in 2003. After passing the examination, Darwin was hired as an able seaman and deployed aboard the vessel M/V Ornella. While on duty, he experienced sharp lower back pain and was eventually diagnosed with "low back pain secondary to Disc Protusion L4-L5 and L5-S1." This led to his repatriation to the Philippines for medical treatment. Subsequently, PAL Maritime discovered Darwin's previous claim for permanent disability benefits from another employer, Phil Transmarine Carriers, Inc., for which he was awarded US $60,000. PAL Maritime discontinued Darwin's medical treatment, alleging malicious concealment of a pre-existing illness. The NLRC ruled in favor of Darwin, citing his honest belief that he was already healed from his previous illness and finding his current ailment work-related. The CA partially granted PAL Maritime's petition, acknowledging Darwin's concealment of a pre-existing illness, and disqualifying him from permanent disability benefits.
Whether Darwin Dalisay is entitled to
permanent and total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and damages
despite his alleged fraudulent concealment of a pre-existing illness during the
pre-employment medical examination.
NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision,
emphasizing that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness
during the PEME is disqualified from claiming any compensation and benefits
under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Any finding that renders an issue on
work-relatedness irrelevant since the premise which bars disability
compensation is the fraudulent misrepresentation of a pre-existing disease and
not the fact that it was pre-existing. The fact that Darwin passed the PEME cannot excuse
his wilful concealment, nor can it preclude PAL Maritime from rejecting his
claims. Taken together, Darwin is disqualified from all benefits including
sickness allowance. Furthermore, attorney's fees were denied due to the lack of
bad faith on PAL Maritime's part, as they were justified in rejecting Darwin's
claims upon discovering his concealment.
No comments:
Post a Comment