YES. And this is the story.
On March 29, 2010, RPC boarded the M/V “PB Pedro” as an Oiler under a three month contract or up to May 25, 2010.
While RPC was carrying some spare parts of a generator to be repaired in a restricted alley, the vessel suddenly swayed due to big waves. RPC fell to his knees. Then, he felt excruciating pain in his scrotal/inguinal area. Despite the pain and numbness in his left leg all the way down, RPC continued to carry the parts and repaired the generator.
After his duty, he proceeded to the ship’s clinic to be checked by the doctor on board. The doctor advised him to rest until further observation.
Upon expiration of his contract, RPC was repatriated to the Philippines. Believing that the pain in his scrotal/inguinal area was normal, he took a complete rest for about a month.
RPC was eventually called for possible deployment. During his post-employment medical exam (PEME), he informed the doctor about the injury he sustained while on board the M/V “PB Pedro”. He underwent x-ray, MRI and EMG NCV procedures. RPC consulted an orthopedic and spine surgeon who recommended immediate surgery.
He did not heed the advice of the surgeon for lack of funds. Instead, RPC filed a complaint against the manning agency with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for permanent and total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter [LA] found that RPC suffered injury while performing his duties as an Oiler. Being a work-related injury, the LA found it to be compensable. The contention of the manning agency that RPC failed to comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement was not appreciated by the LA.
The manning agency elevated the case to the NLRC. NLRC reversed and set aside the LA decision and dismissed RPCs claim for disability benefits as he was not examined by the company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation.
RPC appealed the case to the Court of Appeals [CA]. The CA denied RPCs appeal. It held that RPC’s failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim compensation and benefits for his injury or illness.
The case was eventually elevated to the Supreme Court [SC], and the SC ruled in the following tenor:
“Based on the foregoing, RPCs claim for disability benefits and other monetary awards prayed for him must be denied. It is evident that RPC was repatriated due to the expiration of his contract. Regarding the cause of his repatriation, he was required to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician within three days upon his return in order to ascertain if he was really suffering from a work-related injury or illness. RPC may only be excused from such requirement if he was physically incapacitated to do so.
x x x
it was only on July 2010 or after his repatriation that the said findings were made by a doctor, which is well-beyond the three-day mandatory reporting period.”
Hence, it is must remembered that a three-day reporting requirement is mandatory insofar as a repatriated seafarer is concerned.
Next story, please! And stay safe.
For questions, email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.
