FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 212049, July 15, 2015
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, MARLON R. ROÑO AND "STAR PRINCESS," Petitioners, v. ROMEO V. PANOGALINOG, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated October 25, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated April 7, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126368, which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated December 15, 2011 and the Resolution5 dated June 27, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CN. OFW (M)-10-14690-10 denying respondent Romeo V. Panogalinog's (respondent) claim for permanent total disability benefits.
2. Disability:ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryBased on the afore-cited provision, a seafarer shall be entitled to the payment of the full amount of disability compensation only if his injury, regardless of the degree of disability, results in loss of profession, i.e., his physical condition prevents a return to sea service. Based on the submissions of the parties, this contractual attribution refers to permanent total disability compensation as known in labor law. Thus, the Court examines the presence of such disability in this case.
A Seafarer who suffers injury as a result of an accident from any cause whatsoever whilst in the employment of the Owners/Company, regardless of fault, including accidents occurring whilst traveling to or from the Ship and whose ability to work is reduced as a result thereof, shall in addition to his sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.
The compensation which the Owner/Company, Manager, Manning Agent, and any other legal entity substantially connected with the vessel shall be jointly and severally liable to pay shall be calculated by reference to an agreed medical report, with the Owners/Company and the Seafarer both able to commission their own and when there is disagreement the parties to this Agreement shall appoint a third doctor whose findings shall be binding on all parties. The aforesaid medical report determines the Degree of Disability and the table below the Rate of Compensation.
x x x x
Regardless of the degree of disability an injury or illness which results in loss of profession will entitle the Seafarer to the full amount of compensation, USD eighty-thousand (80,000) for Ratings (Group B, C & D) and USD one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand (120,000) for Officers (Group A). For the purposes of this Article, loss of profession means when the physical condition of the Seafarer prevents a return to sea service, under applicable national and international standards and/or when it is otherwise clear that the Seafarer's condition will adversely prevent the Seafarer's future of comparable employment on board ships.31
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSUnder the Labor Code, there are three kinds of disability, namely: (1) temporary total disability; (2) permanent total disability; and (3) permanent partial disability. Section 2, Rule VII of the AREC differentiates the disabilities as follows:cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphases supplied)
SEC. 2. Disability - (a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided in Rule X of these Rules.In this case, despite the finding of fitness to work by the company-designated physicians, the CA declared respondent entitled to permanent total disability benefits for failure of the former to declare the latter fit to work within the 120-day period provided under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, citing the ruling in the cases of Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation32 (Valenzona) and Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Mesina33 (Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc.) that declared a seafarer permanently disabled if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. Both Valenzona and Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. stemmed from the ruling in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad34 that characterized permanent disability as the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.
(b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.
(c) A disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body. (Emphasis supplied)
[T]he petitioner has repeatedly invoked our ruling in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, apparently for its statement that the respondent in the case "was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability." This declaration of a permanent total disability after the initial 120 days of temporary total disability cannot, however, be simply lifted and applied as a general rule for all cases in all contexts. The specific context of the application should be considered, as we must do in the application of all rulings and even of the law and of the implementing regulations.Elucidating on this point, Vergara discussed the seeming conflict between Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC and Article 192 (c) (1)37 of the Labor Code on permanent total disability in relation to Section 2(a), Rule X38 of the AREC that provided for a 240-day period in case of further medical treatment, thus:cralawlawlibrary
As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Thus, temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.40cralawrednad
(a) | the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days; |
(b) | 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the companydesignated physician; |
(c) | the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; |
(d) | the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well; |
(e) | the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading; |
(f) | the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work; |
(g) | the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and |
(h) | the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.42 |
The POEA-SEC and the CBA govern the employment relationship between Dumadag and the petitioners. The two instruments are the law between them. They are bound by their terms and conditions, particularly in relation to this case, the mechanism prescribed to determine liability for a disability benefits claim. x x x Durnadag, however, pursued his claim without observing the laid-out procedure. He consulted physicians of his choice regarding his disability after Dr. Dacanay, the company-designated physician, issued her fit-to-work certification for him. There is nothing inherently wrong with the consultations as the POEA-SEC and the CBA allow him to seek a second opinion. The problem arose only when he pre-empted the mandated procedure by filing a complaint for permanent disability compensation on the strength of his chosen physicians' opinions, without referring the conflicting opinions to a third doctor for final determination.Besides, the findings of Dr. Lim and Dr. Chuasuan should prevail over that of Dr. Jacinto considering that the former examined, diagnosed, and treated respondent from his repatriation on May 9, 2010 until he was assessed fit to work on September 15, 2010; whereas, it appears that the independent physician, Dr. Jacinto, only examined respondent on October 13, 201046 which was the same day the latter filed his claim for permanent total disability benefits.47 While the medical certificate indicates that respondent was under Dr. Jacinto's service beginning "September 2010," no supporting document on record shows this to be true. In fact, the NLRC even observed that the medical certificate of Dr. Jacinto was issued after a onetime examination and worse, without any medical support.48 Case law dictates that, under these circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician should be given more credence for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.49cralawrednad
The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag's contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. x x x Thus, the complaint should have been dismissed, for without a binding third opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician stands, pursuant to the POEA-SEC and the CBA.45 (Emphasis supplied.)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 27-49.
2 Id. at 60-70. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
3 Id. at 72-73.
4 CA rollo, pp. 54-59. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida with Commissioners Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap concurring.
5 Id. at 60-62.
6 Id. at 106.
7Rollo, p. 61.
8 Id.
9 CA rollo, pp. 56-57.
10 Id. at 57.
11 See Medical Certificate dated October 13, 2010; id. at 107.
12 Id. at 66-67.
13 Id. at 83-105.
14 Id. at 88-89 and 93.
15 Id. at 101-102.
16 Id. at 142 and 146.
17 Id. at 42-52. Penned by Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que, Jr.
18 Id. at 179-200.
19 Id. at 54-59.
20 Id. at 57.
21 Id. at 252-277.
22 Id. at 60-62.
23 Id. at 3-39.
24Rollo, pp. 60-70.
25cralawred CA rollo, pp. 412-425.
26Rollo, pp. 72-73.
27 See Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe, Jr., G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014; citation omitted.
28 Id.
29 See INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Moradas, G.R. No. 178564, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 475, 488.
30 CA rollo, pp. 49 and 136.
31 Id. at 117.
32 See G.R. No. 176884, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 642.
33 See G.R. No. 200837, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 601.
34 510 Phil. 332, 340 (2005).
35Millan v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 195168, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 225, 231.
36 588 Phil. 895, 915 (2008).
37 ART. 192. Permanent Total Disability.
x x x
(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the Rules;
38 Rule X - TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY
Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement- (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.
39Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services; supra note 36, at 912.
40 Id. at 913.
41 See G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 296.
42 Id. at 315.
43 See Splash Philippines, Inc. v. Ruizo, G.R. No. 193628, March 19, 2014, 719 SCRA 496, 508.
44 G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53.
45 Id. at 65-66.
46 See CA rollo, p. 107.
47 Id. at 66-67.
48 Id. at 57.
49 See Formerly INC Shipmanagement Incorporated (now INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc.) v. Rosales, G.R. No. 195832, October 1, 2014.
50 CA rollo, p. 57.