SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 210307, February 22, 2017
TRADEPHIL SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC.,/GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, Petitioners, v. DANTE F. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the June 28, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 125519, as modified in its December 4, 2013 Amended Decision,2 which set aside the April 2, 2012 Decision3 and the May 8, 2012 Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 01-000024-12, a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits by seafarer Dante F. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz).
The Antecedents
On July 2, 2009, Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc. (Tradephil) engaged the services of Dela Cruz to work as Ordinary Seaman on board the vessel, "M/V Venus," for a period of nine (9) months with a basic monthly salary of US$377.00. Upon the expiration of the contract in April 2010, the parties signed a new one for an additional period of six (6) months, or until October 2010. For the extended period, he served as Able Seaman with a basic monthly salary of US$520.00. Sometime in July 2010, after carrying heavy loads, Dela Cruz complained of pricking pains in his left scrotal area. He reported the matter to the Master of the vessel who gave him medicines for temporary relief. Thereafter, upon the vessel's arrival in Paranagua, Brazil, he was referred to Dr. Filippo Carmosino, who diagnosed him "to be afflicted with 'Varicocele' and recommended 'light work' and 'surgery in your country.'"5
On September 3, 2010, Dela Cruz was repatriated to the Philippines. Upon his arrival in Manila, he was referred to the company-designated physician, Dr. Esther G. Go (Dr. Go) at the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC). On September 6, 2010, Dr. Go diagnosed him to be suffering from "suspicious varicocele, left." On September 14, 2010, Dela Cruz was recommended for operation and was admitted to the hospital on September 22, 2010. The next day, September 23, 2010, he underwent an operation called "Varicocoelectomy, bilateral"6 and was discharged on September 25, 2010.7
Thereafter, Dela Cruz was entrusted to the care of the company-designated urologist, Dr. Darwin Lim (Dr. Lim). After a series of consultation, Dr. Lim examined him on December 29, 2010 because he still felt the on-and-off pains in his scrotal area. Dr. Lim observed that based on his condition at that time, his closest interim assessment was Grade 12 - slight residual disorder. Dela Cruz agreed to a reevaluation of his condition on January 4, 2011, the earliest date available for Dr. Lim; but for some reason, he missed this appointment with Dr. Lim.8
On January 6, 2011, Dela Cruz filed his complaint against Tradephil and Gregorio F. Ortega (Ortega), being the President of Tradephil, before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
On January 7, 2011, Dela Cruz sought the medical opinion of Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto (Dr. Jacinto), who issued a medical certificate declaring him "to be physically unfit to go back to work" with a disability rating of "total permanent."9
On January 17, 2011, or eleven (11) days after the filing of his complaint, Dela Cruz went back to Dr. Lim for consultation and underwent repeat inguinoscrotal ultrasound which revealed normal ultrasound of both testes. On the same date, Dr. Lim declared him fit to work. He, however, refused to sign his certificate of fitness for work because he needed to observe his condition further.10
On March 10, 2011, during the hearing of the case, Tradephil suggested that the parties refer the matter to a third doctor. This was rejected by Dela Cruz at the hearing on March 15, 2011.11
The LA Ruling
In its July 29, 2011 Decision,12 the LA ruled that Dela Cruz was not entitled to disability benefits, explaining that because of the conflicting assessments of the company-designated physician and his own doctor, there should have been a referral to a third doctor, which was, however, refused by Dela Cruz. The LA continued that, with the absence of an assessment coming from an independent third doctor as required by Section 20(B) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seafarers (POEA-SEC), the assessment of the company-designated physician, which was arrived at after a series of actual examinations and treatment, would be more credible than the assessment of Dr. Jacinto after a single consultation.
The LA also denied Dela Cruz's claims for moral and exemplary damages. The LA, nevertheless, granted his prayer for sick wages noting that the Tradephil failed to present any evidence to prove that he received his sick wages, whether partially or wholly. For the same reason, the LA granted his claim for attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to 10% of the award for sick wages. The dispositive portion of the LA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, except as to the order for respondents to pay complainant US$2,080.00 as sick wages (US$520 x 4 mos.) and US$208.00 as attorney's fees, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the case for lack of merit.Both parties elevated their respective appeals to the NLRC.
SO ORDERED.13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered dismissing the appeal of complainant for lack of merit. Respondent's appeal is GRANTED.Dela Cruz moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution, dated May 8, 2012.
The July 29, 2011 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby MODIFIED by deleting the award for sick wages and attorney's fees. The Decision finding complainant not entitled to disability benefit STAYS.
SO ORDERED.15
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Setting aside the assailed April 2, 2012 Decision and May 8, 2012 Resolution of the NLRC, the private respondents are hereby directed to pay petitioner his claimed total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 dollars and ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees.Tradephil moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied by the CA in its December 4, 2013 Amended Decision. It, however, reduced the award for disability benefits to US$5,225.00, with 10% thereof as attorney's fees. In reducing the award, it considered the interim assessment of Grade 12 disability rating made by Dr. Lim on December 29, 2010.
SO ORDERED.16
Petitioners Tradephil and Ortega argue that the CA's departure from the ruling in Vergara was in clear violation of the principle of stare decisis, which calls for the adherence by lower courts to the doctrinal rules established by the Court.ISSUES I.
The Court of Appeals committed a serious error when it rendered a judgment that is not in accord with the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court.II.
The Court of Appeals committed a grave error when it reversed the decision of the NLRC and awarded disability benefits and attorney's fees to respondent.17
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.20 [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]Despite this holding, the CA reversed the April 2, 2012 NLRC Decision, declaring that the rule enunciated in Vergara was inapplicable to the present case as it had not been consistently followed by this Court. It explained that after the promulgation of Vergara, the Court still awarded disability compensation benefits on the basis of the 120-day rule.21 This ratiocination is misplaced.
Certainly, the company-designated physician must perform some significant act before he can invoke the exceptional 240-day period under the IRR. It is only fitting that the company-designated physician must provide a sufficient justification to extend the original 120-day period. Otherwise, under the law, the seafarer must be granted the relief of permanent and total disability benefits due to such non-compliance.23The above rule was further refined in Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias,24 where the Court declared that:
Hence, as it stands, the current rule provides: (1) that mere inability to work for a period of 120 days does not entitle a seafarer to permanent and total disability benefits; (2) that the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is within the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law; (3) that the company-designated physician has an initial 120 days to determine the fitness or disability of the seafarer; and (4) that the period of treatment may only be extended to 240 days if a sufficient justification exists such as when further medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is uncooperative.25 [Emphasis supplied]From the foregoing, it is clear that the 120-day rule and the subsequent decisions applying it are consistent with the 240-day rule in Vergara. The Court had already harmonized its various rulings with respect to the periods within which a seafarer may be declared fit or unfit for sea duties for the purposes of his claim for permanent and total disability compensation. To emphasize, the general rule remains to be that-the company-designated physician must declare the seafarer fit for sea duties within a period of 120 days; otherwise, the latter must be declared totally and permanently disabled entitling him to full disability benefits. It is only when there is sufficient justification may the company-designated physician be allowed to avail of the exceptional 240-day extended period.
Pertinently, seafarers, as a general rule, are not government employees. Neither would those who are recruited by foreign-based employers (through licensed recruitment agencies) be considered as compulsorily covered by the SSS because Section g(c) of the Social Security Law, as amended, is clear that:This conclusion by the CA is likewise misplaced. Contrary to its opinion, the Court has applied the 240-day under Section 2, Rule X of the IRR to claims for disability compensation by seafarers, not because it considered seafarers as employees as defined under the SSS or the GSIS, but because of the express directive by the New Civil Code. This issue is actually not novel as it has already been previously addressed in several cases."(c) Filipinos recruited by foreign-based employers for employment abroad may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis."Being not "compulsorily covered by the GSIS xxx" nor "by the SSS xxx," seafarers are concededly, not governed by Book Four, Title II of the Labor Code. Their disability claims are not to be processed under the "Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund" of Book N, Title II of the Labor Code but rather by, as admitted in the NLRC's April 2, 2012 Decision, the POEA SEC.26 [Emphases omitted]
In this respect and in the context of the present case, Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code provides that:Considering that the applicability of the 240-day temporary disability under Section 2, Rule X of the IRR to seafarers is now beyond question, the only issue to be resolved is whether Dela Cruz is entitled to disability benefits.xxx The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:The rule referred to - Rule X, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations implementing Book IV of the Labor Code - states:
(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided in the Rules;xxx 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.29 [Underscoring and emphases in the original]
Section 20 [B]. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness.Section 20(B)(3) has been interpreted to mean that it is the company designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seafarer's disability during the term of his employment. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the said assessment is final, binding or conclusive on the seafarer, the labor tribunal or the courts. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by exercising his right to a second opinion and to consult a physician of his choice, in which case the medical report issued by the latter shall be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court, based on its inherent merit.36 In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's physician, the parties may agree to jointly refer the matter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.37x 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 his 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. [Emphasis supplied]
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 32-65.
2 Id. at 66-68.
3 Penned by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, with Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, concurring; id. at 78-85.
4 Id. at 86-88.
5 CA rollo, p. 89.
6 Id. at 91.
7 Id. at 92.
8 Id at 152-153.
9 Id. at 115.
10 Id. at 151.
11 Id. at 48.
12 Penned by Labor Arbiter Adolfo C. Babiano; rollo, p. 69-77.
13 Id. at 76-77.
14 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
15Rollo, pp. 84-85.
16 Id. at 64-65.
17 Id. at 16.
18 Id. at 134-145.
19 Id. at 165-170.
20Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Service, Inc., supra note 14, at 912.
21Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 624 Phil. 523 (2010); Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation, 675 Phil. 713 (2011); Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan, 693 Phil. 416 (2012).
22 G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 431.
23 Id. at 453.
24 G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015.
25 Id.
26Rollo, pp. 47-48.
27 521 Phil. 330 (2006).
28 Id. at 346.
29Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Service, Inc., supra note 14, at 911-912.
30Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 711 Phil. 614 (2013).
31 691 Phil. 521 (2012).
32 Id. at 538.
33OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. v. Pellazar, G.R. No. 198367, August 6, 2014, 735 SCRA 280.
34The Late Alberto B. Javier v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 738 Phil. 374 (2014).
35 698 Phil. 170 (2012).
36Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, 671 Phil. 56 (2011).
37Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., supra note 35, at 182.
38INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Rosales, G.R. No. 195832, October 1, 2014, 737 SCRA 438, 450, 451.