Alpha Ship Management Corporation, et al.

v Eleosis Calo
GR No. 192034, January 13, 2014

Failure to act by the company physician within 120-240 days under the Amended
Rules on Employees Compensation there is a conclusive presumption that the
seafarer's disability is permanent and total, thereby entitling him for disability benefit

Facts

Respondent Calo works with the petitioner under 7 employment contracts. He

suffered from back pain and urinated solid particles while working on board as chief
cook of Chuo-Kaiun Company Ltd. He was diagnosed with UTI and renal colic.
When his condition did not improve, he went to another doctor who diagnosed him
with kidney problems and UTI but was cleared for work although only for light
duties. On Sept. 19, 2004 he was declared unfit to work and was ordered to return to
the Phils. He was repatriated on October 12, 2004 and visited the company physician
Dr. Nicomedes Cruz upon arrival who recommended he is fit to work. When he filed
for disability benefits the claim was denied. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
respondent but this was reversed by the NLRC. On appeal, the CA reinstated the
Labor Arbiter's ruling hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue

Whether or not the respondent is entitled to disability benefits despite being declared
as fit to work.

Held

He is entitled to disability benefit.

Article 192 (c)(1) provides that disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent xxx
c) temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days. Xxx The
120-day period may be extended up to 240 days under Rule X, section 2 of
the Amended Rules onEmployees Compensation and pursuant to the pronouncement
that a temporary total disability becomes permanent when so declared by the
company-designated physician within the period allowed, or upon the expiration of
the 240 days medical treatment period in case of absence of such declaration of fitness
or permanent disability. If after the lapse of these periods, a seafarer remains
incapacitated in performing his duties and the company-designated physician has not
yet declared him to be fit to work or permanently disabled, there is a conclusive
presumption that he is totally and permanently disabled.

It appears that the respondent was repatriated on October 12, 2004 and his treatment
continuous until October 14, 2005, a period of more than a year and the companydesignated physician failed to make an assessment on the respondent's medical
condition. The period of 120-240 having lapsed, the presumption that the respondent's
condition was permanent and total already attaches. He is therefore entitled to claim
for disability benefit.