WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. v. ERNESTO C.

TANAWAN
G.R. No: 160444
Petitioner/s: Wallem Maritime Services, Inc
Respondent/s: Ernesto C. Tanawan
Ponente: J. Bersamin
Action: Petition for review on certiorari
Date: August 29, 2012

3.

FACTS
1. Wallem Maritime Services Inc, then acting as local agent of
Scandic Ship Management, Ltd., engaged Ernesto Tanawan as a
dozer driver assigned to the vessel (M/V Eastern Falcon) for a
year.
2. While he was assisting 2 co-workers in lifting a steel plate aboard
the vessel, a corner of the steel plate touched the floor of the deck,
causing the sling to slide and the steel plate to hit his left foot. His
xray examination showed he suffered multiple left toes fracture
(i.e., left 2nd proximal phalanx and 3rd to 5th metatarsal).
Following his repatriation, company-designated physician
Dr. Robert D. Lim conducted the evaluation and treatment
of his foot injury at Metropolitan Hospital. He was referred
to the hospitals orthopedic surgeon who advised him to
continue with this immobilization to allow healing.
After removing his cast, he was advised to start motion
exercises and partial weight bearing. He underwent
physical therapy for 2 months at the St. Camillus Hospital.
He also underwent bone grafting as advised by the
orthopedic surgeon.
Dr. Lim, conforming with the orthopedic surgeons findings,
reported that Tanawan was already asymptomatic and
pronounced him fit to work.

4.

5.

6.

From Nov 30, 1997 to April 1998, Tanawan was paid

sickness allowances equivalent to his monthly salary. (172
days unfit to work)
On March 1998, while still under treatment by Dr. Lim,
Tanawan sought services of Dr. Rimando Saguin to assess
the extent of his disability and the latter categorized the
foot injury as Grade 12 based on the POEA Schedule of
Disability.
On August 1998, Tanawan also went to Dr. Hernando Bunuan for
disability evaluation, not of his foot injury but of an eye injury he
had supposedly sustained while on board the vessel.
Some thinner accidentally splashed into his right eye while
spray-painting the loader of the vessel. He was rushed to
the Office of the Chief Mate for emergency treatment and
the ship doctor examined him 5 days later but found that
there was nothing to worry about.
Dr. Bunuan referred him to Dr. Tim Jimenez who diagnosed him to
be suffering from a retinal detachment with vitreous hemorrhage
on the right eye for which surgical repair was needed. Dr. Bunuan
categorized his disability as Grade 7.
[ARBITRATION BRANCH of NLRC] Tanawan filed a complaint for
disability benefits for the foot and eye injuries, sickness allowance,
damages and attorneys fees against Wallem Maritime and Scandic
Ship Management.
NLRC denied this claim averring that he was already
declared fit for work by Dr. Lims certification and that he
did not sustain the eye injury while on board because it was
not reported. Also, his claim for sickness allowance was
already paid when he underwent treatment.
[LABOR ARBITER] ruled in Tanawans favor:
LA found sufficient evidence to support Tanawans claim for
disability benefits for the foot and eye injuries (according to
Dr. Saguins classification of foot injury as Grade 12 and Dr.
Bunuans classification of eye injury as Grade 7).
Dr. Lims certification that Tanawan was fit to work was
hearsay evidence because he had no personal knowledge of

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

the facts, but it has been the orthopedic surgeon who made
the finding.
Wallem Maritime and Scandic Ship to pay Tanawan
US$5,225 (for foot injury) and US$20,900 (eye injury), plus
attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary
awards.
7. [NLRC] reversed LAs decision
Dr. Saguins certification was issued while Tanawan was
still under Dr. Lims treatment, and that Dr. Saguins
disability grading had no factual or legal basis. During that
time, Dr. Lim already declared Tanawan as fit for work.
Tanawan failed to discharge his burden of proof to establish
that he had sustained the injury while on board the vessel.
He did not submit himself to a post-employment medical
exam for the eye injury. It was a mere afterthought.
Certification of Dr. Bunuan on the eye injury did not state
the cause. No evidence that thinner directly caused it.
Contrary opinion of a certain Dr. Willie Angbue-Te attested
that the splashing of a thinner would not lead to his alleged
eye complication.
8. [CA] ruled in favor of Tanawan

What was being compensated in disability compensation

was not the injury but the incapacity to work
Considering that the foot injury incapacitated Tanawan
from working, he should be given disability benefits.
Dr. Lims certification had no probative weight because it
was self-serving and biased in favor of petitioner (since he
was the company-designated physician)
Claim for eye injury was warranted because it occured
during the term of the employment contract, and that an
injury need not be work-connected to be compensable.

ISSUE 1
Whether or not the standard employment contract of POEA is the
law between Tanawan and Wallem Maritime? YES

1. Employment of seafarers, and its incidents, are governed by the

contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired. While
the seafarers and their employers are governed by their
mutual agreements, the POEA rules and regulations require
that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard terms and
conditions of the seafarers employment in foreign oceangoing vessels, be integrated in every seafarers contract.
ISSUE 2
Whether or not a company-designated physician possesses the
legal authority to declare a seaman fit or disabled under the law?
-- YES
HELD 2
1. 1996 POEA SEC Sec 20(b) on Compensation and Benefits provides
that the one tasked to determine whether the seafarer suffers from
any disability or is fit for work is the company-designated
physician. The seafarer must submit himself for post-employment
medical examination within 3 days from his repatriation. However,
this assessment is not final, binding or conclusive on the seafarer,
labor tribunals, or the courts. He may request for a second opinion
and the medical report issued by the physician of his choice shall
also be evaluated on its merit.
As applied in this case, Tanawan submitted himself to Dr.
Lim, the company-designated physician, for medical exam
within the 3-day reglementary period. This medical exam
was focused on the foot injury, not on the alleged eye injury,
when Dr. Lim declared him fit for work.
Tanawan consulted Dr. Saguin for the evaluation of the
degree of his disability. At that time, he was due to undergo
bone grafting as Dr. Lim recommended. Therefore, Dr.
Saguins finding that Tanawan had Grade 12 disability was
explicable and plausible.
ISSUE 3

HELD 1
THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Whether or not a seaman can claim disability benefits after he

failed to report his alleged injury within the 3-day reglementary
period as required by law? -- NO

Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition. DELETES the award of

US$20,900.00 as disability benefits for the eye injury.
NOTES:

HELD 3
1. Tanawans claim for disability benefits due to the eye injury was
already barred by his failure to report the injury and to have his
eye examined by a company-designated physician.
2. Rationale for this rule is that reporting the injury within 3 days
from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to
determine cause of injury. Ascertaining real cause of injury beyond
3 days may prove difficult.
3. To ignore this rule might set a precedent to negative repercussions
(like opening floodgates to a limitless number of disability benefits
claims) or causing unfairness to employer who would have
difficulty in determining the cause of claimants illness because of
the passage of time.

1996 POEA SEC, Section 20(B): COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

4. Under 1996 POEA SEC, it was enough to show that the injury
was sustained during term of contract.

2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment

in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of
such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as
well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work
or to be repatriated.

However, Tanawan did not report the eye injury to Dr. Lim
while he was undergoing treatment for foot injury. He also
had his eye checked after almost 9 months from his
repatriation.
Tanawan did not present any proof of having sustained the
eye injury during the term of his contract. He also did not
present evidence that the thinner cause the eye injury.
Certification of Dr. Bunuan did not indicate cause of eyes
injury.

DISPO
Claim for disability benefit for the eye injury is denied in view of
Tanawans (1) non-reporting of the injury to the petitioner and (2)
of his failure to prove that the injury was sustained during the
term of his employment.

xxx
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS:
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers injury or
illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages
during the time he is on board the vessel;

However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical

attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided
at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the
degree of his disability has been established by the companydesignated physician.
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the
seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic
wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent
disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician,
but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120)
days.

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment medical examination by a company-designated
physician within three working days upon his return except when
he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written
notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as
compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory

reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to

claim the above benefits.

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW