[ G.R. No.

236498, September 16, 2020 ]

TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. AND/OR GOODWOOD SHIP MANAGEMENT, PTE.,

DECISION

LOPEZ, J.:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated April 21, 2017,
and Resolution2 dated January 3, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) that upheld the findings of the
labor tribunals and declared Magno T. Utanes (Utanes) entitled to permanent and total disability
benefits.

ANTECEDENTS

On November 13, 2014, respondent Utanes was hired by petitioner Trans-Global Maritime Agency,
Inc. (Trans-Global), in behalf of its foreign principal, Goodwood Ship Management, Pte., Ltd., as
Oiler on board MTG.C. Fuzhou for a period of nine months. He was declared fit for sea duty in his
pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was thereafter allowed to board the vessel on
November 15, 2014.

In the course of carrying out his duties, on January 25, 2015, Utanes suddenly felt severe chest
pain, accompanied by dizziness and weakness. He was made to endure his condition until his
repatriation on May 18,2015. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Utanes was referred to Marine Medical
Services. From May 20, 2015, Utanes was subjected to various tests and treatment for coronary
artery disease. After five months of treatment, the company doctors discontinued his treatment.
Consequently, Utanes consulted an independent cardiologist, Dr. May S. Donato-Tan, who
concluded that the nature and extent of Utanes' illness rendered him permanently and totally unfit to
work as a seaman. Thus, on January 19, 2016, Utanes filed a complaint for disability benefits,
medical expenses, damages and attorney's fees.

For its part, petitioners alleged that Utanes denied history of high blood pressure or any kind of heart
disease when he ticked the "No" box opposite 'High Blood Pressure' and 'Heart Disease
Vascular/Chest Pain' under the section, Medical History in his PEME. It was on May 17, 2015, that
Utanes complained of back and chest pains, with difficulty of breathing and easy fatigability, and was
thereafter medically repatriated. During the course of his treatment by the company-designated
physicians, sometime in September 2015, Utanes disclosed that, as early as 2009, he was
diagnosed with Coronary Artery Disease, for which he underwent Percutaneous Coronary
Intervention of the left anterior descending artery. Consequently, Utanes stopped receiving treatment
from the company-designated physicians, prompting him to file a complaint for the payment of total
and permanent disability benefits.

In a Decision dated June 15, 2016, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Utanes and awarded him total
and permanent disability benefits.3 It was declared that Trans-Global is considered to have waived
its right to assert nonliability for disability benefits to Utanes because it continued to extend treatment
despite the belated disclosure of his existing Coronary Artery Disease. The treatment constitutes an
implied admission of compensability and work-relatedness of Utanes' lingering cardio-vascular
illness. Likewise, Trans-Global failed to issue a final assessment of Utanes' illness or fitness to work,
which failure deemed Utanes totally and permanently disabled.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the arbiter's ruling because
Utanes illness occurred within the duration of his contract, and his treatment lasted for more than
120 days. Thus, the award of permanent total disability benefits is justified.4 Petitioners moved
for reconsideration, but was denied.5

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed the
petition.6 Unsuccessful7 at a reconsideration,8 petitioners are seeking recourse before this Court,
alleging that the CA committed serious errors of law in upholding the NLRC's Decision. Utanes is not
entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and his other monetary claims because of
deliberate concealment of his coronary artery disease.9 For his part, Utanes maintains that he is
entitled to total and permanent disability benefits since his illness was work-related and had
contributed to the development of his condition that resulted in his disability.10

RULING

The petition is meritorious.

The general rule is that only questions of law may be raised in and resolved by this Court on
petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, because the Court, not being a trier
of facts, is not duty-bound to reexamine and calibrate the evidence on record.11 Findings of fact of
quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded finality and
respect.12 There are, however, recognized exceptions13 to this general rule, such as the instant
case, where there is manifest mistake in the inference made from the findings of fact and judgment
is based on a misapprehension of facts.14

In the review of this case, we stress that entitlement of seafarers on overseas work to disability
benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The material
statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code15 in relation to Section 2(a), Rule X of
the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. By contract, the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration - Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, if any, and the employment agreement between the seafarer and the employer are
pertinent. Section 20, paragraph E of the POEA-SEC clearly provides that "[a] seafarer who
knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination
(PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and
benefits, x x x"

The rule seeks to penalize seafarers who conceal information to pass the pre-employment medical
examination. It even makes such concealment a just cause for termination. Under the 2010 POEA-
SEC, there is a"'pre-existing illness or condition" if prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any
of the following is present: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such
continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer has been diagnosed and has knowledge of such
illness or condition but failed to disclose it during the pre-employment medical examination, and
such cannot be diagnosed during such examination.16

Here, Utanes' September 18, 2014 PEME indicated that he was not suffering from any medical
condition likely to be aggravated by service at sea or which may render him unfit for sea service. His
medical history likewise did not show that he had heart disease/vascular/chest pain, high blood
pressure, or that he underwent treatment for any ailment and was taking any medication. Notably, he
signed the PEME acknowledging that he had read and understood and was informed of the contents
of the medical certificate. On the other hand, the company-designated doctor's medical report, dated
September 17, 2015, stated that Utanes disclosed that he has a history of coronary artery disease
for which he underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending artery in
2009. Evidently, Utanes obscured his pre-existing cardiac ailment. This concealment disqualifies him
from disability benefits notwithstanding the medical attention extended by the company-appointed
physicians upon his repatriation.

It is immaterial that Utanes' misrepresentation was discovered during the course of his treatment
with the company-appointed doctors. That medical attention was extended by the company-
appointed physicians cannot cancel out his deception. In Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phils.,
Inc., et al.}1 the seafarer's concealment was revealed beyond the 120-day treatment period, after the
issuance of a final assessment by the company-designated physicians, and even after a claim for
benefits was filed. Nonetheless, the Court declared that the seafarer is not entitled to disability
benefits because of concealment. Also, in Status Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Sps. Delalamon and
Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp., et al.,19the Court ruled against the seafarers, whose
concealment were found out while being treated by company doctors. More so, in Philman Marine
Agency, Inc., et al. v. Cabanban,20 the Court did not award disability benefits to a seaman whose
concealment was discovered as early as his examination at the port of his assignment and prior to
repatriation.

Time and again, it has been ruled that a PEME is generally not exploratory in nature, nor is it a
totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition.21 It does not reveal
the real state of health of an applicant, and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-
existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be taking
medication.22 The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer's
physiological condition and is just enough for the employer to determine his fitness for the nature of
the work for which he is to be employed.23 Since it is not exploratory, its failure to reveal or uncover
Utanes' ailments cannot shield him from the consequences of his deliberate concealment24 The "fit
to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any
ailment prior to his deployment.25