Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    Apines v. Elburg

    Uploaded by

    Hencel Gumabay
    Apines was injured while working aboard a ship and claimed he was permanently disabled. While the employer argued Apines failed to follow reporting procedures, the court found he promptly reported his injury and was not at fault for any lack of documentation. The court determined that what matters is if a seafarer is unable to work for over 120 days, which constitutes permanent total disability. As Apines was unable to work for over 120 days due to the employer failing to provide a medical rating, his disability is considered total and permanent, entitling him to benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Apines v. Elburg

    Uploaded by

    Hencel Gumabay
    92 views2 pages
    Apines was injured while working aboard a ship and claimed he was permanently disabled. While the employer argued Apines failed to follow reporting procedures, the court found he promptly reported his injury and was not at fault for any lack of documentation. The court determined that what matters is if a seafarer is unable to work for over 120 days, which constitutes permanent total disability. As Apines was unable to work for over 120 days due to the employer failing to provide a medical rating, his disability is considered total and permanent, entitling him to benefits.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    117. Apines v. Elburg

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Apines was injured while working aboard a ship and claimed he was permanently disabled. While the employer argued Apines failed to follow reporting procedures, the court found he promptly reported his injury and was not at fault for any lack of documentation. The court determined that what matters is if a seafarer is unable to work for over 120 days, which constitutes permanent total disability. As Apines was unable to work for over 120 days due to the employer failing to provide a medical rating, his disability is considered total and permanent, entitling him to benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views2 pages

    Apines v. Elburg

    Uploaded by

    Hencel Gumabay
    Apines was injured while working aboard a ship and claimed he was permanently disabled. While the employer argued Apines failed to follow reporting procedures, the court found he promptly reported his injury and was not at fault for any lack of documentation. The court determined that what matters is if a seafarer is unable to work for over 120 days, which constitutes permanent total disability. As Apines was unable to work for over 120 days due to the employer failing to provide a medical rating, his disability is considered total and permanent, entitling him to benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    117. ELMER A. APINES vs. ELBURG SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC.

    , AND
    DANILO F. VENIDA. G.R. No. 202114, November 09, 2016.

    IN DISABILITY COMPENSATION CLAIMS, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS


    THAT [THE SEAFARER] WAS UNABLE TO PERFORM HIS CUSTOMARY
    WORKFOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS WHICH CONSTITUTES PERMANENT
    TOTAL DISABILITY

    Facts:
    Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. (ESPI) is a local manning agency, with Danilo
    F. Venida as representative (collectively, the respondents). Emirates Trading Agency LLC
    (ETAL) is among ESPI's foreign principals.

    On September 11, 2007, Apines boarded ETAL's ship, M/V Bandar TBN Trans Gulf, for
    an eight-month engagement as bonus. Apines claimed that sometime in the third week of
    September, a British surveyor was on board the ship to inspect the cargo hold. Captain Glicerio
    Castañares (Capt. Castañares) and Chief Mate Edgardo Llevares instructed Apines to put an
    apparatus on the top tank of the cargo hold to check for possible leaks. Apines promptly
    complied with the order. On his way up from the cargo hold, he accidentally stepped on
    scattered iron ore pellets causing his left knee to strongly hit the steel railings of the ladder, and
    for him to slip and fall. According to Apines, despite a sprain and swollen ankle, he was able to
    stand up and walk. When the pain eventually became intolerable, Apines informed Capt.
    Castañares about his condition. Apines was given analgesics. Apines claimed that since the
    pain in his left knee even worsened, he requested for immediate repatriation on medical
    grounds.

    ESPI claimed that it referred Apines to a company-designated doctor, but the latter
    consulted his own physicians instead. Apines consulted Dr. Patrick O. Leh (Dr. Leh), an
    orthopedic surgeon in CGH. The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Leh indicated that Apines had
    "degenerative osteoarthritis" and "medial meniscal tear" in his left knee. Dr. Leh assessed that
    Apines "may return to work after 30 [to] 45 days," but "needs continued medical treatment for
    osteoarthritis."

    On June 6, 2008, Apines filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
    a Complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical, hospital and
    transportation expenses, moral and exemplary damages, sickness allowance, attorney's fees
    and legal interest.

    Issues:
    A. Whether Apines failure to comply with the 72-hour reporting requirement fatal to his
    claim.

    B. Whether Apines is entitled total and permanent disability benefits.

    Held:
    A. No. The absence of a post-employment medical examination cannot be used to defeat
    respondent's claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to
    the seafarer's fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of petitioners. As indicated in the
    Exit Interview and Crew De-briefing Checklist, Apines promptly reported to ESPI's office within
    72-hours from repatriation. Admittedly, Apines failed to offer documentary proofs of the
    respondents' denial to assist him in his medical needs. However, Apines cannot be faulted for
    the said lack since the custody of the documents, if there were any at all, pertains more to the
    respondents.
    B. Yes. In disability compensation claims, "what is important is that [the seafarer] was unable to
    perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total
    disability," since "an award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the
    purpose of the benefit, which is to help the employee in making ends meet at the time when he
    is unable to work. Due to ESPI's failure or refusal to issue a medical rating within 120 days from
    repatriation, in legal contemplation, Apines' disability is conclusively presumed to be total and
    permanent.

    You might also like