Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GILBERT QUIZORA v. DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 199568 2015-06-17	DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY v. HEIRS OF ANDRES G. GAZZINGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, while petitioners were quick to point out that Dr. Banaga is a company-designated physician, the latter, however, could not have possibly arrived at a reliable diagnosis of Gazzingan’s condition. His assessment, based merely on Gazzingan’s PEME, did not reflect the true state of health of the seafarer. As the Court has previously ruled, a PEME is not exploratory in nature and cannot be relied upon to arrive at a seafarer’s true state of health.[50] The NLRC erred in stating that this opinion can be relied upon as an accurate assessment of Gazzingan’s illness on the sole reason that no contrary opinion was rendered. The fact that there was no contrary opinion of another physician is of no moment. To repeat, Dr. Banaga’s opinion is not an accurate appraisal of the extent of Gazzingan’s disability. It was not based on the post-employment medical examination conducted on Gazzingan after his medical repatriation. In the absence of reasonable findings, diagnostic tests and procedures to support the assessment, the same cannot be simply taken at face value. Moreover, Dr. Banaga hastily concluded that aortic dissection is hereditary without necessarily considering other varied factors that can contribute to the development of the disease. Consequently, his medical opinion cannot be given credence or serve as basis to deny Gazzingan’s disability claims.
	GR No. 210660 2015-01-21	FLOR G. DAYO v. STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondent's illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory.[59]
	GR No. 198388 2014-07-28	JORAINA DRAGON TALOSIG v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES SERENO, C.J.
In Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Phils.), Inc.,[18] this Court categorically declared: [P]etitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. As he did so without solid proof of work-relation and work-causation or work-aggravation of his illness, the Court cannot provide him relief.
	GR No. 209302 2014-07-09	ALONE AMAR P. TAGLE v. ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT MENDOZA, J.
It is of no moment that petitioner passed his PEME. In Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc.,[44] the Court reiterated the statement in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Cruise Ships Catering and Services International, N.V. v. National Labor Relations Commission[45] that: The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. We have ruled that in the past the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service," it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the "fit to work" declaration in the respondent's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. Thus we held in NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC:
	GR No. 201251 2013-06-26	INTER-ORIENT MARITIME v. CRISTINA CANDAVA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the employment of seafarers, including claims for death benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. As long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties. Nonetheless, while the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer's contract.[37]
	GR No. 191606 2012-08-01	DAMASO R. CASOMO v. CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT PEREZ, J.
In the recent case of Quizora v. Denholrn Crew Management (Phil.), Inc.,[9] we categorically declared, thus: [Petitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. As he did so without solid proof of work-relation and work-causation or work-aggravation of his illness, the Court cannot provide him relief.