SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 212764, September 09, 2015
HANSEATIC SHIPPING PHILIPPINES INC., REEDEREI HANS PETERSON & SOEHNE GMBH & CO. HG AND/OR ROSALINDA BAUMAN, Petitioners, v. ARLES BALLON, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the November 25, 2013 Decision1 and the June 2, 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 124237, affirming the January 6, 2012 Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC decision reversed and set aside the April 15, 2011 Decision4 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), a case where the certification of the company-designated physician on the claimed disability of the seafarer was issued beyond the 120-day period.
The Facts
Petitioner Hanseatic Shipping Philippines, Inc. (Hanseatic), a domestic corporation and the manning agency of its foreign principal, petitioner Reederei Hans Peterson & Soehne GMBH & Co. HG. (Reederei), employed respondent Aries Ballon (Ballon), a seafarer by profession, sometime in November 2001. In his last employment with Hanseatic, Ballon signed a 6-month contract on May 25, 2010. After undergoing the required pre-employment medical examination (PEME), he was hired by Hanseatic as an Able Bodied (AB) Seaman, and on May 31, 2010, he embarked on "MV Westerems."
Complainant Ballon's Position
While on board the vessel, Ballon felt extreme pain in his right jaw which he complained to his second officer. While the ship was docked in Manila, he was referred to the company-designated physician of Shiphealth, Inc. (Shiphealth).5 On July 12, 2010, he was diagnosed to have "Reactive Lymphadenopath" and was advised to come back for a check-up after two (2) weeks, when the vessel would be back in Manila.6
On July 23, 2010, when the vessel arrived at the Port of Kaohsiung in Taiwan, Ballon requested for a medical examination as the pain in his right jaw recurred and persisted. He was brought to Kaohsiung General Hospital where he was diagnosed by Dr. Chih-Msiu Lou to be suffering from "Right Temporo-Mandibular Joint Syndrome."7 He was advised to take some medication. Thereafter, he boarded the ship again.
On July 26, 2010, Ballon disembarked from the ship in Manila. According to him, on the same day, he reported his medical condition to Hanseatic and the latter referred him to its company-designated physician at Shiphealth. In turn, the Shiphealth physician referred him to the Manila Doctors Hospital (MDH) where he was treated as an out-patient.8
On August 5, 2010, Ballon went to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) where he was diagnosed by Dr. Roberto Pangan to have "Myofascial Pain Dysfunction probably stress related."9
On August 11, 2010, Dr. Anna Pamella Lagrosa-Elbo (Dr. Elbo) and Dr. Maria Gracia K. Gutay (Dr. Gutay), the company-designated physicians of Hanseatic, issued a letter of authorization/consultation.10 They diagnosed Ballon to be suffering from "Myofascial Pain Dysfunction; Stress Related" and referred his case to Dr. Elmer dela Cruz of the MDH.
On August 27, 2010, Dr. Elbo and Dr. Gutay issued Medical Report No. 311 confirming the diagnosis of the PGH. On September 15, 2010, Dr. Elbo and Dr. Gutay issued Medical Report No. 412 recommending that Ballon undergo 10 sessions of physical therapy for his "Myofascial Pain Dysfunction." Meanwhile, a letter of authorization,13 dated September 14, 2010, was issued by Dr. Elbo and Dr. Gutay referring Ballon to Dr. Arnel V. Malaya of the MDH for rehabilitation consult.
On September 29, 2010, Ballon underwent electrodiagnostic examination which revealed findings compatible to mild, chronic, active cervical radiculopathy involving the right C5-6 spinal roots. On October 16, 2010, he was diagnosed by Dr. Roland Dominic G. Jamora (Dr. Jamora), a neurologist, to be suffering from "Myelopathy R C5-6."14
Dr. Elbo and Dr. Gutay issued an undated final diagnosis15 (undated final report) stating that Ballon had "Myofascial Pain Dysfunction probable Stress related s/p 10 sessions of Physical Therapy" and "Cervical Myelopathy, Right C5-C6 secondary to Disc Bulges C3-C4, C4-C5 and C5-C6." They considered him maximally medically improved and cleared to go back to work, but advised the intake of pain medications.
On November 8, 2010, Ballon signed the Certificate of Fitness for Work16 which stated that he was holding Shiphealth and Hanseatic free from all liabilities. He, however, vehemently denied that he executed the same willingly and voluntarily.17
On November 18, 2010, Ballon filed a complaint18 for permanent disability compensation, reimbursement of medical expenses and payment of sick wages, moral and exemplary damages before the LA against Hanseatic and its President, Rosalinda Bauman, and its foreign principal, Reederei (petitioners).
Subsequently, Ballon consulted another physician regarding his condition. On February 11, 2011, Dr. Manuel Jacinto, Jr. (Dr. Jacinto) diagnosed him to be suffering from C5-C6 Radiculopathy and Myofascial Pain Dysfunction. Dr. Jacinto gave a disability rating of Grade 1, adjudged him to be physically unfit to go back to work and declared him to be suffering from total and permanent disability.19
On March 9, 2011, Dr. Elmer dela Cruz issued a medical certificate20 clearing Ballon of any disability. On March 10, 2011, Dr. Jamora and Dr. Adrian Catbagan also issued separate medical certificates21 stating that Ballon was cleared of his disability. These three doctors were previously consulted by him.
Petitioners' Position
Petitioners averred that Ballon himself requested that he be signed-off from the vessel. On July 13, 2010, while the vessel was docked in Manila, he completed his duty and was allowed to go ashore. While he was still on land, "MV Westerems" had to seek shelter due to an impending typhoon so he was instructed to immediately return on board. He, however, returned only on the next day. The master of the vessel required him to explain his delay in returning to the vessel.
In a hand-written letter,22 dated July 16, 2010, Ballon justified his delay by stating that he saved the life of his nephew. He then asked the master of the vessel that he be repatriated to Manila. On July 19, 2010, the master of the vessel relayed the incident and Ballon's explanation to his superior.23 Thereafter, on July 26, 2010, Ballon disembarked from the ship.
Petitioners insisted that it was only on August 11, 2010, or more than two weeks after his disembarkation, that Ballon sought medical consultation from their company-designated doctors because of jaw pain. After he was subjected to a thorough examination and extensive treatment, he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physicians.
The LA Ruling
On April 15, 2011, the LA dismissed the complaint and ruled that Ballon was not entitled to any disability benefits. The LA explained that there was no evidence that he immediately reported to the company-designated physician after he signed-off from the vessel on July 26, 2010. It was only on August 5, 2010 when he went to see a doctor at the PGH. Also, relying on his letter, the LA opined that he voluntarily requested for his termination and that he was not medically repatriated.
Anent Ballon's medical condition, the LA stated that although a medical certificate of Dr. Jacinto stated that he was physically unfit to go back to work, no laboratory report was submitted. Thus, the LA gave more credence to the company-designated physicians' findings that he was fit to go back to his duties.24
Aggrieved, Ballon elevated the case to the NLRC.
The NLRC Ruling
On January 6, 2012, the NLRC reversed and set aside the April 15, 2011 decision of the LA. It concluded that Ballon was entitled to the amount of US$60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefits, US$2,772.00 as sickness allowance, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary awards.
The NLRC opined that "[i]n his handwritten letter dated 16 July 2010, Ballon never mentioned that he wished to be signed off, much more pre-terminate his contract with the respondents. Although it may appear from the said letter that complainant requested to be repatriated and that such request was relayed by the vessel's Master to respondent principal, there is no evidence that such request was granted."25 Moreover, Ballon continued to perform his duties as an AB seaman in the vessel and was even medically examined in Taiwan on July 23, 2010.
The NLRC did not give credence to the assertion of petitioners that Ballon only reported on August 11, 2010, or more than two weeks after his disembarkation. It found that Ballon reported to the company-designated physician on July 26, 2010, or on the day of his repatriation, otherwise, he would not have been examined by the company-designated physicians. Significantly, the NLRC also noticed that the report released by petitioners was Medical Report No. 3, which meant that he had reported to the company-designated physician at some other previous dates.
The NLRC did not seriously consider the undated final report of the company-designated physicians either. The report stated that Ballon was maximally improved but did not mention whether his cervical myelopathy in his right C5-C6 had healed. According to the NLRC, his other disorder, myofascial pain dysfunction, was stress-related. A perusal of his July 16, 2010 letter confirmed that he suffered stress as he was deprived of his privacy on board the ship and did not have his own cabin for resting. Thus, the NLRC held that the medical assessment of Dr. Jacinto as an independent physician, which gave Ballon a disability rating of Grade 1, prevailed over the incomplete medical assessment of the company-designated physicians. The NLRC disposed the case in this wise:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complainant's appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Agency and Principal are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, the complainant the amount of US$ 60,000.00 as permanent and total disability benefits, US$2,772.00 (US$693.00 x 4mos) as sickness allowance, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the said monetary awards all to be paid in their peso equivalent at the time of payment.
SO ORDERED.26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC dated January 6, 2012 and March 19, 2012, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.29ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I.
WHETHER THE DECLARATION OF FITNESS TO WORK BY THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN AND THE SUBSEQUENT HIRING OF BALLON AS A SEAFARER BY ANOTHER MANNING AGENCY ARE OVERWHELMING PROOF THAT HE IS FIT TO WORK.II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT BALLON IS ENTITLED TO THE MAXIMUM DISABILITY COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF THE 120-DAY PRESUMPTIVE DISABILITY RULE.
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
xxxx
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.
xxxx
[Underscoring Supplied]
The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims.36
ART. 192. Permanent Total Disability, xxx
(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:
(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided in the Rules;cralawlawlibrary
[Emphasis Supplied]
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 anytime 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.
[Emphasis Supplied]ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;cralawlawlibrary
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;cralawlawlibrary
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
- If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.40
The possibility that petitioner could work as a drummer at sea again does not negate the claim for permanent total disability benefits.
In the same case of Crystal Shipping, Inc., we held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryPetitioners tried to contest the above findings [of permanent total disability] by showing that respondent was able to work again as a chief mate in March 2001. Nonetheless, this information does not alter the fact that as a result of his illness, respondent was unable to work as a chief mate for almost three years. The law does not require that the illness should be incurable. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability.[Emphasis Supplied]ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 2166, dated September 9, 2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and Associate Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio, concurring; rollo, pp. 15-29.
2 Id. at 31-32.
3 Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palana with Presiding Commissioner Herminio Suelo and Commissioner Numeriano Villena, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 36-48.
4 Penned by Labor Arbiter Fedriel Panganiban; id. at 54-68.
5 CA rollo, p. 85,
6 Id. at 124.
7 Id. at 125-126.
8 Id. at 102.
9 Id. at 127-129.
10 Id. at 130.
11 Id. at 95.
12 Id. at 96.
13 Id. at 131.
14 Id. at 133-134.
15Rollo, p. 86.
16 Id. at 87.
17 CA rollo, p. 389.
18 Id. at 379-380.
19 Id. at 135.
20 Id. at 260.
21 Id. at 259, 261.
22Rollo, p. 82.
23 Id. at 83.
24 CA rollo, p. 68.
25 Id. at 41.
26 Id. at 47.
27 Id. at 50-53.
28 Id. at 571.
29Rollo, p. 28.
30 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
31 Id. at 120-139.
32 Id. at 149-154.
33Ceriola v. Naess Shipping Philippines. Inc., G.R. No. 193101, April 20, 2015.
34 Id., where the Court enumerated some of the exceptional circumstances where the post-employment medical examination was dispensed with.
35 G.R. No. 181921, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 267.
36 Id., citing Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan, G.R. No. 160444, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 255.
37 CA rollo, pp. 124-126.
38MaerskFilipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Mesina, G.R. No. 200837, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 601, 619, citing Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete, 677 Phil. 262, 273-274 (2011).
39 G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015.
40 Id.
41 646 Phil. 570, (2010), citing More Maritime Agencies; Inc. v. NLRC, 366 Phil. 646, 653-654 (1999).
42 Id. at 586.
43 CA rollo, p. 547.
44Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer, supra note 35.
45 G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015.
46 Id. citing Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. V. Munar, G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 795, 810.
47Eyana v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 193468, January 28, 2015 552 Phil. 130, 145 (2007).