Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82704:56522&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:58:31+00:00

Document:
MARTIN K. AYUNGO, Petitioner, v. BEAMKO SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION, EAGLE MARITIME RAK FZE, AND JUANITO G. SALVATIERRA, JR.,[***]Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated May 4, 2012 and Resolution3 dated August 16, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 117162 which reversed and set aside the Resolutions4 dated July 20, 2010 and September 28, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in OFW (M) 09–12328–08 dismissing petitioner Martin K. Ayungo’s (Ayungo) claim for disability benefits.
On October 11, 2007, Ayungo entered into a twelve (12) month Contract of Employment5 with respondent Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation (Beamko) on behalf of its foreign principal, respondent Eagle Maritime RAK FZE (Eagle Maritime), whereby he was engaged as Chief Engineer for the vessel M/V World Star (vessel).
Following his repatriation, Ayungo was attended to by Dr. Robert Lim (Dr. Lim) of the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC), the designated physician of Beamko. In a Medical Certificate12 dated March 26, 2008, his tests reflected the following impressions: (a) to consider Meniere’s Syndrome (Endolymphatics Hydrops); (b) Hypertension; and (c) Diabetes Mellitus. It was also revealed that Ayungo was previously diagnosed with Hypertension which he maintained by taking the prescriptive drug Lifezar.
In another Medical Report13 dated May 21, 2008, Ayungo was further diagnosed with Multiple Lacunar Infarcts and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD).
As per our reply to your previous inquiry dated April 10, 2008, his Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus are both pre–existing and can be contributory to the Multiple Lacunar Infarcts noted on CT Scan.
Hypertension is not work–related. It is multifactorial in origin which includes genetic predisposition, poor lifestyle, high salt intake, smoking, Diabetes Mellitus, age and increased sympathetic activity.
On September 2, 2008, Ayungo filed a complaint17 before the NLRC for the payment of permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees against Beamko, respondent Juanito G. Salvatierra, Jr. (Salvatierra, Jr.), in his capacity as President of Beamko, and Eagle Maritime (respondents).
In a Decision25 dated May 14, 2009, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ordered Beamko, Eagle Maritime, and Salvatierra, Jr. to jointly and severally pay Ayungo the sum of: (a) US$60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefits, as well as US$6,300.00 sickness allowance, to be paid in Philippine currency at the time of payment; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
Dissatisfied, respondents filed an appeal to the NLRC.
In a Resolution29 dated July 20, 2010, the NLRC denied the appeal, and thereby affirmed the LA’s ruling in toto. It fully subscribed to the findings of the LA that Ayungo’s Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension were work–related and, hence, compensable, effectively debunking respondents’ contention that Ayungo is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits on the ground that his illnesses were pre–existing.
Respondents moved for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a Resolution30 dated September 28, 2010, prompting the filing of a petition for certiorari before the CA.
Pending resolution thereof, both parties jointly filed a Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment Award31 before the NLRC, wherein Ayungo manifested his receipt32 of the sum of P3,391,506.31 from respondents, without prejudice to the outcome of the certiorari case filed before the CA.
Dissatisfied, Ayungo filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution37 dated August 16, 2012, hence, this petition.
The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in granting respondents’ petition for certiorari, thereby setting aside the NLRC’s decision holding that Ayungo was entitled to disability benefits.
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents’ certiorari petition since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it held that Ayungo was entitled to disability benefits notwithstanding the latter’s failure to establish his claim through substantial evidence.
Thus, considering that Ayungo failed to establish the work–relatedness of his Diabetes Mellitus through substantial evidence, his claim for disability benefits therefor should not have been granted by the NLRC.
Breaking down the provision, Hypertension is considered compensable when it is shown that: (a) it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability; and (b) there are documents that substantiate said finding, such as chest x–ray report, ECG report, blood chemistry report, funduscopy report, and C–T scan. As records are bereft of any showing that these requirements had been complied with by Ayungo, his Hypertension should not have been considered by the NLRC as compensable.
The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag’s contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. x x x Thus, the complaint should have been dismissed, for without a binding third opinion, the fit–to–work certification of the company–designated physician stands x x x.
Whatever his reasons might have been, Dumadag’s disregard of the conflict–resolution procedure under the POEA–SEC and the CBA cannot and should not be tolerated and allowed to stand, lest it encourage a similar defiance. x x x The third–doctor–referral provision of the POEA–SEC, it appears to us, has been honored more in the breach than in the compliance. This is unfortunate considering that the provision is intended to settle disability claims voluntarily at the parties’ level where the claims can be resolved more speedily than if they were brought to court.
In this case, the findings of Beamko and Eagle Maritime’s physicians that Ayungo’s illnesses were not work–related were, in turn, controverted by Ayungo’s personal doctor stating otherwise. In light of these contrasting diagnoses, Ayungo prematurely filed his complaint before the NLRC without any regard to the conflict–resolution procedure under Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA–SEC. Thus, consistent with Philippine Hammonia, the Court is inclined to uphold the opinion of Beamko and Eagle Maritime’s physicians that Ayungo’s illnesses were pre–existing and not work–related, hence, non–compensable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 4, 2012 and Resolution dated August 16, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 117162 are AFFIRMED.
*** “Juanito Salvatierra” in some parts of the records.
2 Id. at 8–30. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes–Carpio, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring.
4 Id. at 505–524 and 551–552, respectively. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, with Commissioners Teresita D. Castillon–Lora and Napoleon M. Menese, concurring.
22 See Position Paper dated November 22, 2008; id. at 186–221.
25 Id. at 355–365. Penned by LA Madjayran H. Ajan.
26 See id. at 358–360.
27 See id. at 360–362.
38Ramos v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 203186, December 4, 2013.
39 See id.; citations omitted.
40Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel, G.R. No. 195518, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 225, 242; see also Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA–SEC.
41 See Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC (Second Division), G.R. 186180, March 22, 2010, 616 SCRA 362, 373–374.
43 Francisco v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 190545, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 660.
44 See Section 32–A (List of Occupational Diseases) of the 2000 POEA–SEC.
45 G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2012, 660 SCRA 309, 319.
48 See Medical Reports dated April 10, 2008 and July 9, 2008, id. at 241–242.
50 G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013; citations omitted.
51Francisco v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., supra note 43, at 667.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.