243. MALICDEM v. ASIA BULK TRANSPORT PHILS INC. | G.R. No.

224753 | June 19, 2019

PONENTE: CAGUIOA, J
TRIGGER: Malicdem is claiming permanent and total disability benefits due to his hypertension and
glaucoma which he asserts as work related. The Court ruled against his claim since he failed to comply
with the mandatory reporting requirement and also failed to prove that such illnesses were work
related.

DOCTRINE: Section 20(A)(3)53 of the POEA-SEC commands that the employee seeking disability
benefits submit himself to post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician
within three (3) working days from his repatriation. Jurisprudence has held that failure to comply with
the mandatory reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC results in the forfeiture of the right to claim
compensation and disability benefits of a seafarer.

ISSUE: WON Malicdem is entitled to permanent total disability benefits

CONTENTIONS: -
● Petitioner
○ Malicdem claims that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because
his illnesses, which consist of hypertension and glaucoma, are work-related, as he was
exposed to risk factors that aggravated these conditions while on-board respondents'
○ vessel.
● Respondent –
○ Respondents essentially aver that the conditions suffered by Malicdem are not work-
related.
○ Moreover, Malicdem failed to comply with the mandatory reporting to a company-
designated physician within three (3) days from disembarkation, thus, resulting to
forfeiture of his claims.

FACTS: RULING:

Parties: LOWER COURT RULING

● Petitioner:
○ Malicdem was an employee of
respondent local manning agency
Asia Bulk Transport Phils (ABTPI)
and was assigned to SKM Korea
Co’s vessel.
● Respondent:
○ Asia Bulk Transport Phils (ABTPI)
is a local manning agency
Root of the Case:
● Malicdem was assigned by ABTPI to SKM
Korea for a period of 3 months.
● Petitioner Malicdem has a history of high
blood pressure but was declared fit to
work.
1. LA
■ The LA dismissed the complaint for lack
of merit and found that Malicdem failed to
prove that said illness was directly
caused or aggravated by his
employment.
2. NLRC
■ Affirmed the LA’s ruling
● SC RULING
• NO. Malicdem is not entitled to permanent
total disability benefits.
• For disability to be compensable under
Section 20(A) of the Amended Standard
Terms and Conditions Governing the
Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers
on-Board Ocean-Going Ships issued on
October 26, 2010 (2010 POEA-SEC), two
● During the second week of his duty, he
suffered from blurring vision and
headache.
● He was later repatriated and examined by
the company designated physician which
found that he was suffering from
glaucoma. However, the report clarified
that it was not work related.
● Malicdem claims that his condition was
due to the fact that he was exposed to
psychological stress for being away from
his family for months; to consumption of
fatty, cholesterol and sodium rich food
which were part of the provisions in the
vessel; to heat in the engine room emitted
by ship equipment; and to frequent
inhalation of diesel and hydrocarbons
used as fuel for the vessel.
● Malicdem consulted a private doctor, Dr.
Liberato Casison (Dr. Casison), who
assessed him as "[disabled] for any work"
due to his conditions.
● Malicdem filed a complaint for disability
benefits,24 claiming that he is entitled to
permanent and total disability benefits
(2) elements must concur:
(1) The injury or illness must be work
related;
(2) The work related injury or illness must
have existed during the term of the
seafarer’s employment contract
● As for those diseases not listed as
occupational diseases, jurisprudence
mandates that the same may be
compensated if it is shown that they are work-
related and the conditions for compensability
are satisfied.
● Moreover, Section 20(A)(3)53 of the POEA-
SEC commands that the employee seeking
disability benefits submit himself to post-
employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three
(3) working days from his repatriation.
● Applying the foregoing guidelines, the Court
cannot grant Malicdem's petition. He failed to
discharge his burden to prove, by substantial
evidence satisfaction of the mandatory
requirements.

● Jurisprudence has held that failure to comply

with the mandatory reporting requirement
under the POEA-SEC results in the forfeiture
of the right to claim compensation and
disability benefits of a seafarer.

● Furthermore, on his hypertension, Malicdem

failed to substantially prove that the same was
contracted due to, or aggravated by, the
conditions of his work on board the vessel.
EXTRA NOTES

● Notably, the mandatory requirement does admit of exceptions, namely:

(1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his repatriation; and
(2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-
employment medical examination by a company-designated physician.