G.R. No. 230357 - ALMARIO F. LEONCIO, V. MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC./ARTEMIO V. SERAFICO AND/OR THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE., LTD..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents MST Marine Services (Phils.) and/or Thome Ship Management Pte. Ltd., jointly and severally to pay complainant the following: 1) Permanent and total disability benefits under the IBP-AMOSUP IMEC/TCCC CBA in the amount of UNITED STATED DOLLARS: ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO (US$127,932.00) [or] on its peso equivalent at the time of payment; 2) Sickness allowance for two (2) months in the amount of US$1,440.00 at their Philippine peso equivalent at the time of payment. 3) Moral damages in the amount of US$1,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of US$1,000.00 at the time of actual payment. 4) Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award, or at their Philippine peso equivalent at the time of actual payment. All other claims are ordered dismissed. The Labor Arbiter noted, as petitioner has insisted, that the respondents were already aware of the existence of Leoncio's coronary artery disease (CAD/HCVD) since 2001 but nonetheless reemployed and redeployed him to work for several more years. Thus, for the Labor Arbiter, petitioner's failure to disclose the stenting procedure in 2009 cannot bar his claim for permanent and total disability benefits. Further, the Labor Arbiter noted that the subject of the stenting procedure in 2009 were the Left Anterior Descending (LAD) and the Left Circumflex (LCX) arteries, which are distinct and different from the cause and subject of his angioplasty, and later repatriation, in 2014the Right Coronary Artery (RCA). Ruling of the NLRC Respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC, which was granted in the tribunal's Decision of July 28, 2015. The fallo of the NLRC Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 20, 2015 of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. [18] Relying on this Court's ruling in Status Maritime v. Spouses Delalamon , [19] the NLRC held that Leoncio's concealment of the stenting procedure during the PEME is a misrepresentation that bars his right to any disability compensation or illness benefit under the POEA-SEC. [20] The NLRC paid no heed to Leoncio's argument that the respondent already knew of his coronary artery disease since 2001 when he was first medically repatriated on account thereof The NLRC took the opinion that "a previous illness which occurred seven years prior to the 200[9] medical procedure should not be used as proof of [petitioner's] illness." [21] The NLRC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 24, 2014. Therefrom, respondent went on a Certiorari to the CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 142956. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In the assailed Decision dated November 9, 2016, the appellate court ruled against Leoncio's entitlement to the benefits he claimed, and accordingly sustained the NLRC. Th