SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 228470, April 23, 2018
LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC., Petitioner, v. ERNESTO AWITEN YAMSON, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS GEORGIA M. YAMSON AND THEIR CHILDREN, NAMELY: JENNIE ANN MEDINA YAMSON, KIMBERLY SHEEN MEDINA YAMSON, JOSHUA MEDINA YAMSON AND ANGEL LOUISE MEDINA YAMSON, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), promulgated on June 9, 2016 and December 1, 2016, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 142663 and 142689. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the June 25, 2015 Decision3 and August 17, 2015 Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NLRC LAC No. 10-000876-14, which affirmed, with modification, the September 8, 2014 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC Case No. NCR (M) 03-03096-14. The Decision of the LA dismissed herein respondent's complaint for recovery of total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, medical and transportation reimbursements, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
Herein petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the shipping business. On May 7, 2012, petitioner employed the services of herein respondent Ernesto Yamson (Ernesto) as Third Mate aboard the vessel "M/V Foxhound" for a period of twelve (12) months, with a basic monthly salary of US$582.00, as evidenced by his Employment Contract.6 On May 9, 2012 Ernesto commenced his employment on board "M/V Foxhound". His contract was subsequently extended.
On November 15, 2013, the vessel anchored at Paia Inlet, Papua New Guinea and started to load logs. On November 19, 2013, Ernesto, while performing his regular tasks on an extremely hot day, felt dizzy. In the evening of the same day, Ernesto started to feel the left side of his body getting numb. Around 9 o'clock of the following morning, Ernesto already felt very weak while performing his duties. He requested that his blood pressure be checked and that his condition be reported to the ship captain. Thereafter, he was ordered to rest in his cabin. However, his condition deteriorated as he could no longer move the left side of his body in the evening of the same day. His predicament worsened when he suffered from LBM the next day forcing him to request that he be brought to the hospital. Ernesto was, thus, brought to the Pacific International Hospital in Papua New Guinea where he was confined and was diagnosed to have suffered from cerebrovascular disease: "left cerebellar infarct" and hypertension, Stage 2. The attending physician ordered him to cease from working for a period of two (2) weeks.7 Subsequently, on December 1, 2013, Ernesto was repatriated to the Philippines. Upon arrival in Manila, he was immediately brought to the Philippine General Hospital where he underwent medical check-up. Finding that he was in a stable condition, the examining doctor sent him home as he was classified as an "out-patient." However, Ernesto continued to experience headache and numbness of the entire left side of his body even after arriving home. This prompted his wife to insist that he be admitted in a private hospital. Thus, on December 4, 2013, Ernesto was admitted at the Manila Doctor's Hospital where he underwent CT scans of the head and heart. In his letter addressed to petitioner, the company-designated physician reported that the result of the CT scan conducted on Ernesto' showed, among others, that he has an "old infarct in the left superior aspect of the left cerebellum."8 On December 13, 2013, Ernesto was discharged from the hospital. Subsequently, he consulted another physician who diagnosed him to be suffering from Hypertensive Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Cerebrovascular Disease and was advised to cease from working as a seaman due to his neurologic deficits.9
On the basis of the findings of his own doctor, Ernesto, on March 14, 2014, filed the above-mentioned complaint praying that he be awarded the following: US$60,000.00 as total and permanent disability benefits; sickness allowance equivalent to 120 days; medical and transportation expenses in the amount of P62,514.64; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and, 10% of the total judgment award as attorney's fees.10
Thereafter, the parties filed their respective Position Papers11 and Replies.12
On September 8, 2014, the LA rendered a Decision in petitioner's favor by dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
Respondent appealed the Decision of the LA to the NLRC.
On June 25, 2015, the NLRC promulgated its Decision and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated September 8, 2014 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that respondent Loadstar International Shipping Inc. is ordered to pay complainant the following:Feeling aggrieved, both petitioner and Ernesto filed with the CA separate special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioning the above Decision of the NLRC.
1. Sickness allowance in the amount of US$2,328.00
2. Medical and transportation expenses in the amount of P31,738.18.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition of Loadstar International Shipping Inc. in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 142689 is DENIED for lack of merit. The petition of Yamson in CA-GR SP No. 142663 is GRANTED. The Decision dated 25 June 2015 and Resolution dated 17 August 2015 of the NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it via its Resolution of December 1, 2016.
We order Loadstar International Shipping Inc. to pay Ernesto Awiten Yamson total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees, in Philippine currency, at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment.
SO ORDERED.14
On October, 30, 2017, Ernesto's counsel filed a "Manifestation of the Death of Respondent and Motion to Substitute the Deceased Respondent with his Surviving Spouse and Children."I
THE COURT OF APPEALS RESOLVED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY RESPONDENT YAMSON AND IN THE PROCESS AWARDED US$60,000.00 REPRESENTING TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS CONSIDERING THAT:
- YAMSON DID NOT SUFFER A ISCHEMIC NOR HEMORRHAGIC STROKE WHILE IN THE EMPLOY OF LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC.
THE WEAKNESS IN THE LEFT SIDE OF YAMSON'S BODY FOR WHICH HE WAS REPATRIATED WAS CAUSED BY ISCHEMIA OR REDUCED BLOOD FLOW TO THE BRAIN AND THIS ISCHEMIA WAS CAUSED BY HIS ATHEROMATOUS BASAL VESSEL DISEASE OR A NARROWING OF HIS ARTERIES.
THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE CT SCANS CONDUCTED BOTH BY THE PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL IN PORT MORESBY, PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND THE MANILA DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL IN MANILA.- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ENGAGED IN SPECULATIONS WHEN IT RULED THAT "IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE INFARCT WAS CAUSED BY THE CEREBRAL ACCIDENT ON NOVEMBER 13, 2013".
THE CT SCAN CLEARLY PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO CEREBRAL EVENT OR ACCIDENT ON THE SAID DATE.
THE USE OF THE PHRASE "IT IS POSSIBLE" IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF "SPECULATION".- THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YAMSON SUFFERED A STROKE OR NOT WHILE WORKING ON BOARD THE VESSEL OF PETITIONER, IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH IS NOT THE PROPER SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS.
- REALITIES ON BOARD M/V FOXHOUND MILITATES AGAINST THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS' FINDINGS THAT THE NATURE OF YAMSON'S EMPLOYMENT AS A THIRD OFFICER HAS REGULARLY EXPOSED HIM TO STRESS, LACK OF SLEEP AND OTHER SIMILAR HAZARDS WHICH LED HIM TO HAVE A STROKE THAT THE CT SCAN SHOWED YAMSON DID NOT HAVE A SCHEMIC STROKE NOR HEMORRHAGIC STROKE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2013.
- YAMSON COMMITTED FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT HIS PAST MEDICAL CONDITION IN HIS PEME WHEN HE DID NOT DISCLOSE AND IN FACT CONCEALED FROM THE PETITIONER THAT HE HAD ALREADY INCURRED A CEREBRAL EVENT LONG BEFORE HIS PEME BEFORE BEING EMPLOYED BY LISI.
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAULTED DR. TEVES, THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN FOR HIS ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAKE A COMPLETE ASSESSMENT OF YAMSON'S HEALTH.
ON RECORD, IT WAS YAMSON WHO FAILED TO COMPLETE HIS POST MEDICAL EXAMINATION AFTER HIS REPATRIATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 20(A), No. 3 OF THE 2010 POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. THIS IS MEDICAL ABANDONMENT.
THE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE FINDINGS OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WHO EXAMINED YAMSON FOR NINE (9) DAYS IN FAVOR OF THE MEDICAL OPINION OF THE PRIVATE PHYSICIAN OF YAMSON WHO EXAMINED HIM ONLY FOR ONE (1) DAY ON MARCH 8, 2014.
THE COURT OF APPEALS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY YAMSON'S PHYSICIAN MATCHED THAT OF DR. KHINE OF PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL.
THE FINDINGS OF THE PRIVATE PHYSICIAN WAS DISCARDED BY THE NLRC.- YAMSON COMMITTED A FATAL ERROR WHEN HE PREMATURELY FILED HIS COMPLAINT WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING THE OPINION OF A THIRD PARTY DOCTOR WHICH VIOLATED THE MANDATORY CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (3) OF THE 2010 POEA-SEC.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS RESOLVED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY PETITIONER AND IN THE PROCESS ALSO AFFIRMED THE AWARD OF SICKNESS ALLOWANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF US$2,328.00 AND MEDICAL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF P31,738.18 IN ADDITION TO THE US$60,000.00 TOTAL AND PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS CONSIDERING THAT:
- YAMSON FAILED TO COMPLETE HIS POST MEDICAL EXAMINATION AFTER HIS REPATRIATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 20(A), No. 3 OF THE 2010 POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
- PETITIONER LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., INC. CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE FOR REFUND OF RESPONDENT YAMSON'S MEDICAL EXPENSES BECAUSE THE EXPENSES DO NOT REFER TO COST OF MEDICINES PRESCRIBED BY THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN.15
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSOn the basis of the above provisions, the Court will, thus, proceed to discuss the main substantive issues which relate to: (1) whether or not Ernesto's illnesses are work-related or work aggravated, and (2) whether or not he is entitled to disability compensation by reason of such illnesses.
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers workrelated injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board the ship;
2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
The seafarer shall be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of medicines prescribed by the company-designated physician. In case treatment of the seafarer is on an outpatient basis as determined by the company-designated physician, the company shall approve the appropriate mode of transportation and accommodation. The reasonable cost of actual traveling expenses and/or accommodation shall be paid subject to liquidation and submission of official receipts and/or proof of expenses.
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. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. 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.
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. It is his findings and evaluations which should form the basis of the seafarer's disability claim. His assessment, however, is not automatically final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts, as its inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, the employer and the seaman may agree jointly to refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.22In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the parties jointly sought the opinion of a third physician in the determination and assessment of Ernesto's disability or the absence of it. Hence, the credibility of the findings of their respective doctors was properly evaluated by the labor tribunals (LA and NLRC) as well as the CA on the basis of their inherent merits.
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring; Annex "C" to petition, rollo, pp. 79-92.
2 Annex "D" to petition, id. at 93-95.
3 Per NLRC opinion written by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and Commissioner Alan A. Ventura; Annex "L" to Petition, id. at 284-311.
4 Annex "N" to Petition, id. at 322-326.
5 Penned by Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan, Annex "I" to Petition, id. at 217-230.
6Rollo, p. 136.
7 See Medical Certificate, id. at 137.
8Rollo, p. 115.
9 See Medical Certificate, id. at 142.
10 See Complainant's Position Paper, Annex "F" to Petition, id. at 132.
11 See Annexes "E" and "F," id. at 96-110 and 117-135.
12 See Annexes "G" and "H," id. at 189-203 and 204-216.
13Rollo, p. 310.
14Id. at 91. (Emphasis in the original)
15Id. at 31-34.
16Id. at 660-661.
17C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Legal Heirs of the late Godofredo Repiso, 780 Phil. 645, 665-666 (2016).
18 See POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of2010, dated October 26, 2010.
19Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016).
20Id. at 182-183.
21 698 Phil. 170 (2012).
22Id. at 182.
23Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc., et al. v. Haro, 784 Phil. 840, 850 (2016); Austria v. Crystal Shipping, Inc., 781 Phil. 674, 682 (2016).
24Id.
25Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., 781 Phil. 197, 217 (2016).
26Id. at 218.
27Rollo, p. 142.
28Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et al., supra note 21, at 184.
29Status Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Spouses Delalamon, 740 Phil. 175, 194 (2014).
30Id.
31Id. at 194-195.
32Id. at 196.
33Id.
34Panganiban v. TARA Trading Shipmanagement, Inc., et al., 647 Phil. 675, 691 (2010).
35 See rollo, p. 115.
36Id. at 89.
37 See Comment to Petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari, id. at 609.
38Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III, 743 Phil. 164, 184 (2014).
39 See Certificate of Death, rollo, p. 650.
40Panganiban v. TARA Trading Shipmanagement, Inc., supra note 34, at 686, 692; Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, 665 Phil. 212, 221 (2011); Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Antonio, 618 Phil. 601, 614-615 (2009).