Loadstar v. Calawigan (G.R. No. 187337. December 5, 2012)

CASE DIGEST: LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE ENRIQUE C. CALAWIGAN, Represented by the Legal Spouse MARITESS C. CALAWIGAN, Respondents. Loadstar v. Calawigan (G.R. No. 187337. December 5, 2012).

FACTS: Enrique C. Calawigan (Calawigan), upon being hired by petitioner Loadstar International Shipping, Inc. (LISI), immediately commenced his shipboard employment. However, about a month prior to the expiration of his contract, it appears that Calawigan, citing personal reasons, filed with LISI a request for disembarkation/resignation letter. With the approval of the request/resignation, Calawigan disembarked the vessel and, upon receipt of his monetary entitlements, executed a Release and Quitclaim in favor of LISI.

Calawigan filed against LISI the complaint for medical reimbursement, sickness allowance, permanent disability benefits, among others, contending that his shipboard employment exposed him to stress, depression, chemical irritants and rigors of the sea for which he suffered from blurring vision and hearing loss.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing Calawigans complaint for lack of merit. Upon appeal, NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision stating that the said seafarers monetary claims were correctly dismissed for lack of showing that his moderate hearing loss was attributable to his working conditions and that he submitted himself for a post- employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three days from repatriation. Aggrieved, the heirs of Calawigan elevated the case to CA which reversed the decision.

ISSUE: Is Calawigan entitled to sickness allowance and permanent disability compensation.?

HELD: Shown to have requested for his disembarkation and/or resignation one month prior to the expiration of his contract, Calawigan failed to establish compliance with the requirement for him to undergo post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from his repatriation. Given that compliance with said requirement is mandatory and the unexplained omission thereof will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits, the CA clearly erred when it adjudged Calawigan entitled to sickness allowance and permanent disability compensation despite his failure to abide by the procedure outlined under the POEA-SEC.In Coastal Safeway Marine Services v. Esguerra, the Court ruled that for the seaman's claim to prosper, it is mandatory that he should be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation. Failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement without justifiable cause shall result in forfeiture of the right to claim the compensation and disability benefits provided under the POEA- SEC.

Considering that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, the well-entrenched doctrine is also to the effect that questions of fact are not proper subjects in this mode of appeal. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties, and are not reviewed by the Court except when the findings are contrary with those of the lower court or quasi-judicial bodies. Since CAs factual findings can be questioned if they are, as here, contrary to those of the lower court and/or administrative agency, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the questions of fact pertinent to the grounds raised in support of LISIs petition.