MANOTA VS AVANTGARDE GR NO 179607 JULY 24

8/10/2019 MANOTA VS AVANTGARDE GR NO 179607 JULY 24

1/12

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

CIRILA.MANOTA, for herself and in behalf of her children, CLAIRE,CATHERINE, CHARLES, PHILIP CHRISTOPHER, CARMI JO, CARLO

JOHN and CE!RIC JAMES,Petitioners,vs.

A"ANT#AR!E SHIPPIN# CORPORATION and$or SEM%A&AN#JOHNSON MANA#EMENT PTE., LT!, Respondents.

#.R. No. '()*+(. Jl- /, +'0

! E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

ssailed in this Petition for Revie! on "ertiorari is the Decision#dated$anuar% &', ('') of the "ourt of ppeals *"+ in "-.R. SP No. )'#/, !hicha0r1ed in toto the Decision(dated $une 2, (''# and the Resolution&dated$anuar% &', (''( issued b% the National 3abor Relations "o11ission *N3R"+in N3R" N"R " No. '(425'', !hich reversed the decision of the 3aborrbiter *3+ 6rantin6 7nri8ue Manota9s clai1 for disabilit% bene:ts. lso

assailed is the " Resolution

dated Septe1ber &, ('') den%in6reconsideration thereof.

On pril #', #554, vant6arde Shippin6 "orporation, the local 1annin6 a6entof Se1ba!an6 $ohnson M6t. Pte. 3td. *respondents+, hired 7nri8ue Manota*7nri8ue+ as an able sea1an for a period of ) 1onths !ith a 1onthl% salar%of ;S


2/12

pneu1oniaEtuberculosis foci. On Ma% #2, #55), he also !ent to the "linicanda 3aborator%, Davao "it%, for blood che1istr% !here it !as sho!n that hehad an elevated blood su6ar. Subse8uent laborator% e=a1inations sho!ed asli6ht decrease in his blood su6ar level.

On Nove1ber , #555, 7nri8ue !ent to the Sea1en9s Hospital for ane=a1ination !here he !as dia6nosed as suFerin6 fro1 Diabetes Mellitus II,PT? cavitar% class &, and 1ove1ent disorder *ta=ia+ aFectin6 the left sideupper and lo!er e=tre1ities.#'?ased on such condition, he !as dee1ed tohave i1pedi1ent -rade # disabilit% and !as dee1ed un:t for sea dut%.

On Nove1ber #2, #555, 7nri8ue consulted !ith Dr. 7fren Vicaldo for theassess1ent of his disabilit% and for !hich the latter issued a 1edicalcerti:cate on the sa1e da% con:r1in6 the for1er9s disabilit% as rated -rade#. Thus, 7nri8ue clai1ed fro1 respondents disabilit% and other bene:ts!hich !ere all denied.

"onse8uentl%, 7nri8ue :led !ith the 3 a "o1plaint

for disabilit% bene:ts,illness allo!ance, rei1burse1ent of 1edical e=penses, da1a6es andattorne%9s fees. He alle6ed that after !orGin6 !ith respondents as a sea1anfor ) 1onths, he !as placed on repatriated illness on Nove1ber &', #554and arrived in the Philippines on Dece1ber (, #554 that fro1 the ti1e hee1barGed fro1 the vessel up to the :lin6 of the co1plaint, he had %et toreceive his sicGness allo!ance e8uivalent to his basic !a6e for a period of#(' da%s and that since his per1anent total disabilit% occurred durin6 theter1 of his e1plo%1ent contract, he is entitled to -rade # disabilit% underthe PO7 Schedule of ?ene:ts in the a1ount of ;S


3/12

ll other clai1s are dis1issed for lacG of 1erit.

In so rulin6, the 3 found that the pro=i1it% of the ti1e of 7nri8ue9s arrival inthe Philippines on Dece1ber (, #554 to the ti1e he had his 1edicale=a1ination at the ;DM" Hospital on $anuar% 4, #55) !here his =ra% result

sho!ed that he !as suFerin6 fro1 pneu1oniaEtuberculosis foci, and thelaborator% results sho!ed hi6h level of blood su6ar, indicated that hissicGness !as contracted durin6 the ter1 of his e1plo%1ent contract thatthe co1pensabilit% of an ail1ent does not depend on !hether the in@ur% ordisease !as pree=istin6 at the ti1e of the e1plo%1ent, but rather if thedisease or in@ur% is !orGrelated or is a66ravated b% his !orGin6 condition.The 3 observed that before 7nri8ue9s hirin6, he under!ent a 1edicale=a1ination and !as declared :t to !orG, but after ) 1onths of !orG !asfound suFerin6 fro1 pneu1oniaEtuberculosis foci, thus, it concluded that7nri8ue contracted the disease durin6 the ter1 of his e1plo%1ent.

66rieved, respondents :led their 1e1orandu1 on appeal !ith the N3R", to!hich 7nri8ue :led his "o11entEOpposition thereto.

On $une 2, (''#, the N3R" rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of!hich reads

JH7R7>OR7, the decision of the 3abor rbiter belo! is S7T SID7. Theco1plaint belo! is dis1issed for lacG of 1erit.

SO ORD7R7D.

The N3R" adopted the :ndin6s of 3 "risteta D. Ta1a%o to !ho1 it referredthe case for report and reco11endation. The N3R" found that 7nri8ue failedto adduce an% evidence !hich established that he contracted or suFeredfro1 pneu1oniaEtuberculosis foci !hile in the e1plo% of respondents fro1pril (&, #554 to Nove1ber &', #554 as there !as not a sin6le 1edicalcerti:cate issued !hile he !as still on board the vessel that !hat hepresented !ere 1edical certi:cates issued lon6 after he had alread%dise1barGed fro1 the vessel. It also observed that the earliest date of7nri8ue9s 1edical certi:cate !as $anuar% 4, #55) !hich !as t!o 1onthsafter his dise1barGation, thus if he !as indeed repatriated for 1edicalreasons, he should have sub1itted a 1edical certi:cate !hich bore a date

close to his dise1barGation and that absent an% proof that he !asrepatriated due to 1edical reasons, the conclusion !as that 7nri8ue !asrepatriated upon co1pletion of his seven1onth contract.

The N3R" found that under Section (' ?& of Me1orandu1 "ircular No. //, aseafarer !ho is 1edicall% repatriated should sub1it hi1self to a poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination !ithin three da%s upon his return or tonotif% the a6enc% !ithin the sa1e period of his ph%sical incapacit% to do so,


4/12

and the failure to co1pl% !ould result in the forfeiture of the ri6ht to sicGnessallo!ance and disabilit% bene:ts that 7nri8ue9s ad1ission that he !asph%sicall% e=a1ined onl% on $anuar% 4, #55), !hich !as 1ore than one1onth fro1 the date of his arrival in the Philippines, therefore, forfeited hisri6ht to an% disabilit% bene:t, even if !e are to assu1e ar6uendo that it

e=isted. The N3R" also noted that 7nri8ue failed to 6ive an% reason for thedela% in :lin6 his clai1, i.e., t!o %ears and eleven 1onths fro1 hisdise1barGation and, that despite 7nri8ue9s alle6ed continuous 1edicaltreat1ent, he never re8uested for pa%1ent or rei1burse1ent of his 1edicale=penses fro1 respondents.

7nri8ue :led a petition for certiorari !ith the ". fter the parties sub1ittedtheir respective pleadin6s, the case !as sub1itted for decision.

On $anuar% &', (''), the " issued its assailed Decision dis1issin6 thepetition for lacG of 1erit and a0r1in6 in toto the N3R" decision. 7nri8ue9s

1otion for reconsideration !as denied in a Resolution dated Septe1ber &,('').

Still dissatis:ed, hence, this petition for revie! on certiorari is :led. 7nri8uedied on October #5, ('',((thus, the instant petition is :led b% his !ido!, forherself and in behalf of her children.

The issue for resolution is !hether or not petitioners are entitled to clai1disabilit% bene:ts fro1 respondents.

The e1plo%1ent of seafarers, includin6 clai1s for death and disabilit%

bene:ts, is 6overned b% the contracts the% si6n ever% ti1e the% are hired orrehired, and as lon6 as the stipulations therein are not contrar% to la!,1orals, public order, or public polic%, the% have the force of la! bet!een theparties.(&

;nder the third para6raph of 7nri8ue9s "ontract of 71plo%1ent(!ithrespondents, it !as stated that the ter1s and conditions provided underMe1orandu1 "ircular No. #, Series of #525 and a1endin6 circulars relativethereto, shall be strictl% and faithfull% observed. Me1orandu1 "ircular No.#, Series of #525, or the ARevised Standard 71plo%1ent "ontract of ll>ilipino Sea1en On ?oard Ocean-oin6 Vessels,A as a1ended b% PO7

Me1orandu1 "ircular No. '/, Series of #55, provides for the 1ini1u1re8uire1ents prescribed b% the -overn1ent for the >ilipino seafarersoverseas e1plo%1ent. This "ircular is applicable in this case instead ofMe1orandu1 "ircular No. //, Series of #554 applied b% the N3R", since thelatter tooG eFect on $anuar% #, #55) !hile 7nri8ues e1plo%1ent !aster1inated !ith his repatriation on Nove1ber &', #554. Section " *+ *c+ ofthe #525 PO7 Standard 71plo%1ent "ontract *S7"+, as a1ended, provides
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt24


5/12

S7"TION ". "OMP7NSTION ND ?7N7>ITS

= = = =

. The liabilities of the e1plo%er !hen the sea1an suFers in@ur% or illness

durin6 the ter1 of his contract are as follo!s

= = = =

c. The e1plo%er shall pa% the sea1an his basic !a6es fro1 the ti1e heleaves the vessel for 1edical treat1ent. fter dischar6e fro1 the vessel thesea1an is entitled to one hundred percent *#''L+ of his basic !a6es until heis declared :t to !orG or the de6ree of per1anent disabilit% has beenassessed b% the co1pan%desi6nated ph%sician but in no case shall thisperiod e=ceed one hundred t!ent% *#('+ da%s. >or this purpose, the sea1anshall sub1it hi1self to a poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination b% the

co1pan%desi6nated ph%sician !ithin three !orGin6 da%s upon his returne=cept !hen he is ph%sicall% incapacitated to do so, in !hich case a !rittennotice to the a6enc% !ithin the sa1e period is dee1ed as co1pliance.>ailure of the sea1an to co1pl% !ith the 1andator% reportin6 re8uire1entshall result in his forfeiture of the ri6ht to clai1 the above bene:ts.

?ased on the fore6oin6 provision, it 1ust be sho!n that the in@ur% or illness!as contracted durin6 the ter1 of the e1plo%1ent contract. The un8uali:edphrase Adurin6 the ter1A covered all in@uries or illnesses occurrin6 durin6 thelifeti1e of the contract.(/

nd it is the oftrepeated rule that !hoever clai1s entitle1ent to thebene:ts provided b% la! should establish his ri6ht to the bene:ts b%substantial evidence.(4Often described as 1ore than a 1ere scintilla,substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 1ind 1i6htaccept as ade8uate to support a conclusion, even if other e8uall% reasonable1inds 1i6ht conceivabl% opine other!ise.()n% decision based onunsubstantiated alle6ations cannot stand as it !ill oFend dueprocess.(2Hence, the burden to prove entitle1ent to disabilit% bene:ts lieson petitioners, thus the% 1ust establish that 7nri8ue had contracted hisillness !hich resulted to his disabilit% durin6 the ter1 of the e1plo%1entcontract.

revie! of the records sho!s that petitioners failed to prove b% substantialevidence that 7nri8ue9s illness !hich resulted to his disabilit% !as ac8uireddurin6 the ter1 of his e1plo%1ent contract. There !as no record of 1edicalco1plaint lod6ed b% 7nri8ue durin6 his e1plo%1ent on board the vesselAHenriette BosanA and even after his arrival in the Philippines on Dece1ber(, #554. s the N3R" correctl% observed, the 1edical certi:cates sub1itted!ere issued lon6 after 7nri8ue had dise1barGed fro1 the vessel. 7=cept for
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt28


6/12

their bare alle6ation, petitioners failed to present an% evidence that !ouldindeed establish that 7nri8ue contracted his illness durin6 his e1plo%1ent.In fact, respondents !ere not even a!are or apprised of 7nri8ue9s illness!hich !as alle6edl% contracted durin6 the ter1 of his e1plo%1ent contractuntil the latter clai1ed for disabilit% bene:ts al1ost & %ears later. Thus, !e

6ive credence to respondents9 clai1 that 7nri8ue !as repatriated to thePhilippines due to the co1pletion of his e1plo%1ent contract and not onaccount of 1edical reason.

?ut assu1in6 ar6uendo that 7nri8ue !as repatriated for 1edical treat1entas he clai1ed, the above8uoted provision clearl% provides that it is1andator% for a sea1an to sub1it hi1self to a poste1plo%1ent 1edicale=a1ination !ithin three *&+ !orGin6 da%s fro1 his arrival in the Philippinesbefore his ri6ht to a clai1 for disabilit% or death bene:ts can prosper. Theprovision, ho!ever, ad1its of e=ception, i.e., !hen the seafarer is ph%sicall%incapacitated to do so, but there 1ust be a !ritten notice to the a6enc%

!ithin the sa1e period for the sea1an to be considered to have co1plied!ith the &da% rule. The &da% 1andator% reportin6 re8uire1ent 1ust bestrictl% observed since !ithin & da%s fro1 repatriation, it !ould be fairl%1ana6eable for the ph%sician to identif% !hether the disease for !hich thesea1an died !as contracted durin6 the ter1 of his e1plo%1ent or that his!orGin6 conditions increased the risG of contractin6 the ail1ent.(5

In this case, 7nri8ue ad1itted that he had his ph%sical e=a1ination at the;DM" on $anuar% 4, #55), !hich !as 1ore than a 1onth fro1 his arrival inthe Philippines, and his =ra% result sho!ed that he hadpneu1oniaEtuberculosis foci. "learl%, 7nri8ue failed to co1pl% !ith the

re8uired poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination !ithin & da%s fro1 hisarrival and there !as no sho!in6 that he !as ph%sicall% incapacitated to doso to @ustif% his nonco1pliance. Since the 1andator% reportin6 is are8uire1ent for a disabilit% clai1 to prosper, 7nri8ue9s nonco1pliancethereto forfeits petitioners9 ri6ht to clai1 the bene:ts&'as to 6rant the sa1e!ould not be fair to respondents.

Petitioners tr% to @ustif% 7nri8ue9s nonco1pliance !ith the poste1plo%1ent1edical e=a1ination b% alle6in6 that such re8uire1ent applies onl% if theseafarer is full% a!are that he alread% has the illness upon hisdise1barGation but not !hen he is not a!are of its e=istence as the

s%1pto1s have not %et 1anifested, as in this case.

Je :nd the ar6u1ent un1eritorious.

Petitioners9 ad1ission that no s%1pto1s of 7nri8ue9s illness had 1anifestedat the ti1e of his arrival in the Philippines revealed that he indeed !as notsuFerin6 of an% ail1ent then, and !as even in 6ood health upon his arrival!hich even bolstered our earlier :ndin6s that he !as repatriated due to the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt30


7/12

co1pletion of his e1plo%1ent contract and not due to an% 1edical reason.Moreover, the poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination !ithin & da%s fro17nri8ue9s arrival is re8uired in order to ascertain his ph%sical condition, sinceto i6nore the rule !ould set a precedent !ith ne6ative repercussionsbecause it !ould open the ood6ates to a li1itless nu1ber of seafarers

clai1in6 disabilit% bene:ts.

It !ould certainl% be unfair to the e1plo%er !ho!ould have di0cult% deter1inin6 the cause of a clai1ants illnessconsiderin6 the passa6e of ti1e.&(In such a case, the e1plo%ers !ould haveno protection a6ainst unrelated disabilit% clai1s.&&

Petitioners contend that considerin6 7nri8ue !as declared :t to !orG prior tohis e1barGation on board the vessel, but upon his =ra% e=a1ination on$anuar% 4, #55) had pneu1oniaEtuberculosis foci, this circu1stance !ouldestablish that he alread% had the illness !hile still on board the vessel as it!as 8uite i1possible for hi1 to have ac8uired the illness onl% !ithin &/ da%supon his arrival in the Philippines on Dece1ber (, #554.

Je do not a6ree.

The fact that 7nri8ue9s pree1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination sho!ed that he!as :t to !orG !ould not necessaril% follo! that his illness !as ac8uireddurin6 his e1plo%1ent as a sea1an. To reiterate, there !as no sho!in6 ofan% 1edical co1plaint fro1 hi1 !hile still on board the vessel. He also didnot co1pl% !ith the 1andator% poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination!ithin & da%s fro1 arrival in the Philippines !here the desi6nated ph%siciancould have evaluated his 1edical condition. More i1portantl%, e=cept forpetitioners9 bare alle6ation that 7nri8ue could not have ac8uired his illness

!ithin the period of &/ da%s upon his dise1barGation, the% have notpresented an% concrete proof or 1edical e=pert opinion to substantiate theirclai1.

The case of Jalle1 v. N3R"&relied upon b% petitioners :nds no applicationin this case. In Jalle1, the deceased sea1an !as dischar6ed fro1 thevessel t!o 1onths before the e=piration of his e1plo%1ent contract. Jeruled then that the onl% plausible reason !h% he !as all of a sudden and !ithno rational e=planation dischar6ed fro1 the vessel !as the :ndin6 that he!as alread% in a deterioratin6 ph%sical condition !hen he left the vessel. Ourconclusion !as buttressed b% the events that transpired i11ediatel% upon

his arrival in the Philippines, i.e., he !as hospitalied t!o *(+ da%s later anddied three *&+ 1onths after. Thus, !e held then that the deceased sea1an9sfailure to co1pl% !ith the &da% poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1inationre8uire1ent !as e=cusable as he !as alread% ph%sicall% incapacitated to doso since he !as alread% ill !hen he left the vessel. Je also ruled that evenassu1in6 that the sea1an9s ail1ent as ar6ued b% the e1plo%ers !as pree=istin6, i.e., contracted prior to his e1plo%1ent on board the vessel, !asnot a dra!bacG to the co1pensabilit% of the disease. Thus, !e said that it is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_179607_2013.html#fnt34


8/12

not re8uired that the e1plo%1ent be the sole factor in the 6ro!th,develop1ent or acceleration of the illness to entitle the clai1ant to thebene:ts provided therefor. It is enou6h that the e1plo%1ent hadcontributed, even in a s1all de6ree, to the develop1ent of the disease andin brin6in6 about his death. In contrast to this case, 7nri8ue9s failure to

co1pl% !ith the 1andator% &da% reportin6 !as not @usti:ed at all as there!as no sho!in6 that he !as ph%sicall% incapacitated to do so. Moreover, asad1itted, 7nri8ue had no s%1pto1s of an% illness durin6 his e1plo%1entand even after his arrival in the Philippines on Dece1ber (, #554. nd there!as no concrete evidence to establish that his e1plo%1ent contributed tohis illness.

>inall%, considerin6 that the N3R" decision, as a0r1ed b% the ", dis1issed7nri8ue9s co1plaint not on the 6round of prescription but after :ndin6 thatthe latter failed to adduce evidence that he contracted his illness durin6 hise1plo%1ent !ith respondents and since he failed to sub1it hi1self to the

poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination !ithout @usti:able reason, !e :nd noneed to discuss petitioners9 clai1 that the instant co1plaint !as not barredb% prescription.

&HERE1ORE, the petition is !ENIE!. The Decision dated $anuar% &', ('')and the Resolution dated Septe1ber &, ('') of the "ourt of ppeals, in "-.R. SP No. )'#/, are hereb% A11IRME!.

SO OR!ERE!.

"ase Di6est

#.R. No. '()*+(

Jl- /, +'0

CIRILA.MANOTA, for herself and in behalf of her children, CLAIRE,CATHERINE, CHARLES, PHILIP CHRISTOPHER, CARMI JO, CARLOJOHN and CE!RIC JAMES vs.


9/12

A"ANT#AR!E SHIPPIN# CORPORATION and$or SEM%A&AN#JOHNSON MANA#EMENT PTE., LT!

!oc2rine3

The employment of seafarers, including claims for death and disabilitybenets, is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired orrehired, and as long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law,morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between theparties.

1ac2s3

vant6arde Shippin6 "orporation, the local 1annin6 a6ent of Se1ba!an6$ohnson M6t. Pte. 3td. *respondents+, hired 7nri8ue Manota as sea1an for aperiod of ) 1onths !ith a 1onthl% salar% of ;S


10/12

their Repl%that 7nri8ue !as not entitled to clai1 for sicGness allo!ance ordisabilit% bene:ts as he failed to co1pl% !ith the poste1plo%1ent 1edicale=a1ination !ithin & da%s fro1 his arrival.

3 decided in favour of 7nri8ue a!ardin6 hi1 his total disabilit% bene:t

*-rade #+ in the a1ount of >I>TK THO;SND DO33RS *;Silipino Sea1en On ?oard Ocean-oin6 Vessels,A as a1ended b% PO7Me1orandu1 "ircular No. '/, Series of #55, provides for the 1ini1u1re8uire1ents prescribed b% the -overn1ent for the >ilipino seafarersoverseas e1plo%1ent. This "ircular is applicable in this case instead ofMe1orandu1 "ircular No. //, Series of #554 applied b% the N3R", since thelatter tooG eFect on $anuar% #, #55) !hile 7nri8ues e1plo%1ent !aster1inated !ith his repatriation on Nove1ber &', #554. Section " *+ *c+ ofthe #525 PO7 Standard 71plo%1ent "ontract *S7"+, as a1ended, provides


11/12

S7"TION ". "OMP7NSTION ND ?7N7>ITS

= = = =

. The liabilities of the e1plo%er !hen the sea1an suFers in@ur% or illness

durin6 the ter1 of his contract are as follo!s

= = = =

c. The e1plo%er shall pa% the sea1an his basic !a6es fro1 the ti1e heleaves the vessel for 1edical treat1ent. fter dischar6e fro1 the vessel thesea1an is entitled to one hundred percent *#''L+ of his basic !a6es until heis declared :t to !orG or the de6ree of per1anent disabilit% has beenassessed b% the co1pan%desi6nated ph%sician but in no case shall thisperiod e=ceed one hundred t!ent% *#('+ da%s. >or this purpose, the sea1anshall sub1it hi1self to a poste1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination b% the

co1pan%desi6nated ph%sician !ithin three !orGin6 da%s upon his returne=cept !hen he is ph%sicall% incapacitated to do so, in !hich case a !rittennotice to the a6enc% !ithin the sa1e period is dee1ed as co1pliance.>ailure of the sea1an to co1pl% !ith the 1andator% reportin6 re8uire1entshall result in his forfeiture of the ri6ht to clai1 the above bene:ts.

?ased on the fore6oin6 provision, it 1ust be sho!n that the in@ur% or illness!as contracted durin6 the ter1 of the e1plo%1ent contract. The un8uali:edphrase Adurin6 the ter1A covered all in@uries or illnesses occurrin6 durin6 thelifeti1e of the contract. nd it is the oftrepeated rule that !hoever clai1sentitle1ent to the bene:ts provided b% la! should establish his ri6ht to the

bene:ts b% substantial evidence. Often described as 1ore than a 1erescintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 1ind1i6ht accept as ade8uate to support a conclusion, even if other e8uall%reasonable 1inds 1i6ht conceivabl% opine other!ise. n% decision based onunsubstantiated alle6ations cannot stand as it !ill oFend dueprocess. Hence, the burden to prove entitle1ent to disabilit% bene:ts lies onpetitioners, thus the% 1ust establish that 7nri8ue had contracted his illness!hich resulted to his disabilit% durin6 the ter1 of the e1plo%1ent contract.

revie! of the records sho!s that petitioners failed to prove b% substantialevidence that 7nri8ue9s illness !hich resulted to his disabilit% !as ac8uired

durin6 the ter1 of his e1plo%1ent contract. There !as no record of 1edicalco1plaint lod6ed b% 7nri8ue durin6 his e1plo%1ent on board the vesselAHenriette BosanA and even after his arrival in the Philippines on Dece1ber(, #554.

The fact that 7nri8ue9s pree1plo%1ent 1edical e=a1ination sho!ed that he!as :t to !orG !ould not necessaril% follo! that his illness !as ac8uireddurin6 his e1plo%1ent as a sea1an. To reiterate, there !as no sho!in6 of


12/12

Documents

MANOTA VS AVANTGARDE GR NO 179607 JULY 24