THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 198968, January 18, 2017
STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION, AND ADMIBROS SHIPMANAGEMENT CO., LTD., Petitioners, v. RODRIGO C. DOCTOLERO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Petitioners Status Maritime Corporation (Status Maritime) and Admibros Shipmanagement Co., Ltd. (Admibros) appeal to assail the March 17, 2011 decision1 and October 6, 2011 resolution2 promulgated in CA-G.R. SP No. 113206, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA), modifying the decision3 rendered on August 18, 2009 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), awarded permanent and total disability benefits in favor of respondent Rodrigo C. Doctolero.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxxx The illness was clearly suffered during the term of his contract and insofar as work relatedness is concerned, there being no contrary evidence adduced by the respondents-appellees of the nonexistence of causative circumstances of complainant-appellant's illness, We are constrained to rule in the latter's favor. The latter finding is likewise supported by the consistent ruling that it is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits incident thereto. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small measure, to the development of the disease.Doctolero moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied his motion for reconsideration on January 8, 2010.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That said, complainant-appellant is thus entitled to reimbursement of his medical expenses in Veracruz, Mexico equivalent to $7,040.65. (Records, p. 28) However, with respect to his claims for sickness allowance and disability pay, there being no declaration as yet of complainant-appellant's fitness to return to work or degree of disability made by the company designated physician, entitlement thereto has not attached. We take note of the fact that the initial evaluation of the company designated physician was that the Gastroscopy was normal and after such evaluation there had been no other assessment on his condition made. We also note that there had been no other assessment made by any other doctor of complainant-appellant's condition that would controvert the findings of the company designated physician and that this complaint has been filed before the 120 days period given to company designated physician to make a fitness to return to work assessment or a disability grading in the latter case. It is clear therefore that the instant case has been prematurely filed and that the cause of action for disability claims has not arisen.
Moreover, to this date there had been no evidence showing that complainant-appellant is permanently and totally disabled.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding no basis for award of sickness allowance and disability pay. However, respondents-appellees are hereby ordered to reimburse complainant-appellant the cost of his medical treatment in the amount of $7,040.65. Accordingly, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated July 18, 2008 is hereby MODIFIED.
SO ORDERED.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered MODIFYING the assailed Decision of public respondent in that private respondents are ordered to pay petitioner the following:Upon the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the CA amended the dispositive portion of its decision through the resolution promulgated on October 6, 2011, to wit:SO ORDERED.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- US $60,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine peso at the time of actual payment, as permanent and total disability benefits:
- Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
- US$7,040.65 by way of reimbursement of the cost of medical treatment in Mexico City;chanrobleslaw
- Legal interest on the monetary awards to be computed from the time of this decision up to the actual payment thereof;chanrobleslaw
- Sick wage allowance equivalent to 120 days of his basic salary;chanrobleslaw
- Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total awards.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered MODIFYING the assailed Decision of public respondent in that private respondents are ordered to pay petitioner the following:In all other respects, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
- US $60,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine peso at the time of actual payment, as permanent and total disability benefits;chanrobleslaw
- Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00;chanrobleslaw
- $7,040.65 (MXN) by way of reimbursement of the cost of medical treatment in Mexico City;
- Legal interest on the monetary awards to be computed from the time of this decision up to the actual payment thereof;chanrobleslaw
- Sick wage allowance equivalent to 120 days of his basic salary;chanrobleslaw
- Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total awards.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxxxThe relevant rule is Section 2, Rule X, of the Rules and Regulations implementing Book IV of the Labor Code, which states:
(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 for in the Rules.
xxxxChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Period of entitlement. - (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning the Jirst day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive clays 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.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThese provisions have to be read together with the POEA-SEC, whose Section 20(3) states:
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.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryApplying the aforementioned provisions, we find the filing of the respondent's claim to be premature.
Although the degree and extent of the seafarer's disability constitute a factual question that this Court should not re-assess on review, the conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, on one hand, and those of the CA, on the other hand, compel the Court to dwell on the factual matters and to re-examine the evidence adduced by the parties.17 Upon its re-evaluation of the records, therefore, the Court concludes that the CA's findings in favor of entitling Doctolero to permanent and total disability benefits were erroneous. While the fact that Doctolero suffered the disability during the term of his contract was undisputed, it was evident that he had filed his complaint for disability benefits before the company-designated physician could determine the nature and extent of his disability, or before even the lapse of the initial 120-day period. With Doctolero still undergoing further tests, the company-designated physician had no occasion to determine the nature and extent of his disability upon which to base Doctolero's "fit to work" certification or disability grading. Consequently, the petitioners correctly argued that Doctolero had no cause of action for disability pay and sickness allowance at the time of the filing of his complaint.
(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 issued by the company designated 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 20-8(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 said periods.16
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2417 dated January 4, 2017.
1Rollo, pp. 28-36; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid (retired) and Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring.
2 Id. at 38-41; penned by Associate Justice Rosario, with Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Gaerlan concurring.
3 Id. at 281-287; penned by Presiding Commissioner Benedicto R. Palacol, with Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Commissioner Nieves Vivar-De Castro concurring.
4 Id. at 30.
5 Id. at 166.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 163-B.
8 Id. at 171-177.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 168-170.
11 Id. at 185-187.
12 Supra note 1.
13 Id. at 35.
14 Supra note 2.
15Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172933, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 610, 627.
16C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 296, 315.
17Madrigalejos v. Geminilou Trucking Service, G.R. No. 179174, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 570, 573.