THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 199162, July 04, 2018
PHIL-MAN MARINE AGENCY, INC., AND DOHLE (10M) LIMITED, Petitioners, v. ANIANO P. DEDACE, JR., SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE LUCENA CAJES DEDACE, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THEIR THREE [3] CHILDREN, NAMELY, ANGELICA, ANGELO AND STEVE MAC, ALL SURNAMED DEDACE, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the 11 May 2011 Decision1 and 24 October 2011 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 102527, which set aside the 6 March 20073 and 22 October 20074 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR CA No. 046726-05 which, in turn, affirmed the 12 October 2005 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC-NCR Case No. OFW(M)-04-07-07888-00, a claim for permanent and total disability benefits by a seafarer.
On 26 July 2003, Dedace boarded M/V APL Shanghai and performed his tasks thereon as an Able Seaman.7:Nine MonthsPosition:Able Seaman Basic Monthly Salary:USD 465.00/mo. Hours of Work:48 hrs./Week Overtime:USD 2.79/hr. Vacation Leave with Pay:USD 78.00/mo.6
Multiple (3) Right Liver Nodules Suspected Haemangiomata need to establish definitive diagnosis.After undergoing further tests and Computed Tomography (CT) Scan, Dr. CK Lee diagnosed Dedace to be suffering from Disseminated Sepsis with Multiple Liver Abscesses. In his Medical Report, Dr. CK Lee elaborated:
Right Kidney Cyst benign and need not be operated.
He is sent for CT Scan of the Abdomen this morning and tomorrow we will know more about his condition. At the moment there is no need for any operation and further tests will be performed.9
This is the reason of the toxic and recurring attacks of fever and abdominal pain which fail to resolved [sic] with previous simple medication given before we managed him. Although at this stage we could not absolutely and conclusively exclude the possibility of Malignancy, there are [sic] strong evidence that he is improving with antibiotics therapy started. on admission. The three lesions detected at first by Ultrasound of the liver. has reduced to two meaning one has [been] resolved completely and the sizes of the lesions have [been] reduced from 2.21 cm to 1.7 cm.Consequently, Dedace was repatriated to the Philippines on 1 March 2004,11 and was referred to Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz (Dr. Cruz). On 27 March 2004, the radiologist, Dr. Cesar S. Co, performed Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) on Dedace, which revealed the following findings:
We will need to continue the present treatment until 1st March 2003 by intravenous medication and thereafter his medication can be changed to oral route. On that day he can be discharged with medication to take with him for further treatment at home.10
Two lesions are noted in the right lobe of the liver measuring 1.7 x 1.6 cm and 1.3 x 1.0 cm. It is hypointense on TI and hyperintense on T2 sequences and shows enhancement after contrast infusions.It appeared that Phil-Man inquired from Dr. Cruz on whether. Dedace's illness was work-related. In his Reply, dated 20 May 2004, Dr. Cruz stated that their gastroenterologist was of the opinion that Dedace's illness is not work-related, to wit:
Gallbladder, ducts, pancreas and spleen are unremarkable.
A 1.3 x 1 cm lesion is seen in the mid-portion of the right kidney, which did not enhance on contrast study.12
This is the response of our gastroenterologist further to your inquiry regarding Mr. Dedace, Jr.On 7 June 2004, Phil-Man, through its President/General Manager, Captain Manolo T. Gacutan wrote a letter to Dedace informing him that his illness is not work-related and therefore not compensable. Dedace was further informed that all payments and treatment will be stopped and any further claims with regard to his condition shall likewise be denied.14
1) Question: Is the illness of Mr. Dedace work-related or not and the specific basis thereof.
Answer: Mr. Dedace has two benign nodules in the liver which were noted by CT scan and fine needle aspiration biopsy. Our gastroenterologist opined that these lesions are not work[-]related.
DIAGNOSIS:
Disseminated sepsis with multiple liver abscess.
Liver nodules, benign.13
WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainant the amount of US$465.00 as sickness allowance plus attorney's fees equivalent to US$46.50 or its equivalent in Philippine peso at the time of payment.Unsatisfied, Dedace appealed before the NLRC.
The other money claims are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.15
WHEREFORE, premises considered complainant's appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and the Decision appealed from [is] AFFIRMED in toto.16Dedace moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the NLRC in its 22 October 2007 resolution.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Resolutions of respondent NLRC are NULLIFIED in so far as they denied petitioner's prayer for permanent disability benefits.The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its 24 October 2011 resolution.
Accordingly, private respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner: a) permanent total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; b) sickness allowance equivalent to thirty (30) days or one (1) month amounting to Four Hundred Sixty Five U.S. Dollars (U.S.$465.00); and c) attorney's fees often percent (10%) of the total monetary award at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.17
The petitioners assail the CA's decision for being erroneous. They argue that since Dedace's illness, Sepsis, is neither listed as a disability under Section 32 of the 2000 POEA-SEC nor listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the same rule, the burden is upon Dedace to present substantial evidence which would show that there is causal connection between his illness and the nature of his employment. The petitioners aver that Dedace failed to discharge this burden. They point out that the records show Dedace did not, by way of a contrary medical finding, contest the medical assessment made by the company-designated physician. The petitioners invoked the case of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC19 to support their stand.ISSUES I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REVERSING BOTH THE FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE LABOR ARBITER AND IN AWARDING RESPONDENT ANIANO P. DEDACE, JR. TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS.II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT ANIANO P. DEDACE, JR. IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES.18
Section 20For disability to be compensable under Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, it must be the result of a work-related injury or a work-related illness. The POEA-SEC defines work-related injury as "injuries resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment." On the other hand, work-related illness has been defined as "any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied."
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:
x x x x6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness, the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
Section 20.Upon his repatriation to the Philippines, Dedace immediately submitted himself to Dr. Cruz, the company-designated physician, for his post-employment examination. He also submitted himself to several tests under the care of other doctors assisting Dr. Cruz to fully determine his medical .condition and the degree of his illness. However, even after undergoing several medical tests and consultations, Dedace was not issued a medical certificate to show Dr. Cruz's final medical assessment on him. The records show only Dr. Cruz's 20 May 2004 letter which was not even addressed to Dedace.
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:
x x x x3. 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. (emphasis supplied)
Rather than making a full assessment of Libang's health condition, disability or fitness, Dr. Lim only reasoned in his medical certificate dated August 13, 2003, that "[Libang's] hypertension could be pre-existing" and that "it [was] difficult to say whether [his diabetes mellitus and small pontine infarct] are pre-existing or not." His assessment was evidently uncertain and the extent of his examination for a proper medical diagnosis was incomplete. The alleged concealment by Libang of his hypertension during his pre-employment medical examination was also unsubstantiated, but was a mere hearsay purportedly relayed to Dr. Lim by one Dr. Aileen Corbilla, his co-attending physician. A categorical statement from Dr. Lim that Libang's illnesses were pre-existing and nonwork-related was made only in his affidavit dated July 16, 2004, or after the subject labor complaint had been filed. Still, Dr. Lim gave no explanation for his statement that Libang's illnesses were not work-related.A similar observation obtains in this case, While the letter, dated 20 May 2004, stated that Dedace's illness is not work-related, nothing would suggest that the same is Dr. Cruz's definite medical assessment. In the first place, the said statement was based merely on the opinion of another specialist, a gastroenterologist, who was not even named. Certainly, Dr. Cruz did not even offer his own opinion on the matter. Furthermore, the records do not show that Dedace was examined by or was placed under the care of any gastroenterologist. Thus, the unnamed gastroenterologist's opinion on Dedace's illness is immaterial in this case.
x x x x
Clearly, there was a breach by Dr. Lim of his obligation as the company-designated physician. Although Libang repeatedly argued that Dr. Lim failed to give an assessment of his illness, herein respondents and Dr. Lim failed to explain and justify such failure. In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, the Court emphasized that the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness or permanent disability within the 120 or 240 days, as the case may be; otherwise, he shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. The Court shall, nonetheless, not make such a declaration in this case because by Libang's plea for a reinstatement of the labor tribunals' rulin%s, he was of the position that his disability was not total and permanent.24 (emphases supplied)
While it is true that medical reports issued by the company designated physicians do not bind the courts, our examination of Dr. Ong Salvador's Initial Medical Report leads us to agree with her findings. Dr. Ong-Salvador.was able to sufficiently explain her basis in concluding that the respondent's illness was not work-related: she found the respondent not to have been exposed to any carcinogenic fumes, or to any viral infection in his workplace. Her findings were arrived at after the respondent was made to undergo a physical, neurological and laboratory examination, taking into consideration his (respondent's) past medical history, family history, and social history. In addition, the respondent was evaluated by a specialist, a surgeon and an oncologist. The series of tests and evaluations show that Dr. Ong-Salvador's findings were not arrived at arbitrarily; neither were they biased in the company's favor.28 (emphasis supplied)Unfortunately for the petitioners, the same could not be said in this case. As already shown, the statement that Dedace's illness is not work-related was not sufficiently explained. The aforesaid statement was unsubstantial to support respondents' position that Dedace's illness is not compensable. All told, the Court finds that the petitioners failed to present sufficient controverting evidence to overthrow the disputable presumption that Dedace's illness is work-related. To rule otherwise would render the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the POEA-SEC nugatory.
Very truly yours, |
(SGD) |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 34-49; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, and concurred in by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, and Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
2 Id. at 51-52.
3 CA rollo, pp. 24-30; penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino.
4 Id. at 31-32; penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, and Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay.
5 Id. at 34-38; penned by Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno.
6 Id. at 33; Contract of Employment dated 18 June 2003.
7 Id. at 40; Position Paper for the [Respondent].
8 Id. at 51.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 52.
11 Id. at 62; Position Paper for the [Petitioners].
12 Id. at 53.
13 Id. at 75.
14 Id. at 54.
15 Id. at 38.
16 Id. at 29.
17Rollo, p. 48.
18 Id. at 14.
19 630 Phil. 352 (2010).
20Rollo, pp. 345-361.
21The Late Alberto B. Javier vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 738 Phil. 374, 385 (2014).
22Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel, 707 Phil. 210, 227-228 (2013).
23 743 Phil. 286, 299 (2014).
24 Id. at 299-300.
25Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Heirs of Andres G. Gazzingan, 760 Phil. 861, 880 (2015).
26De Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 215293, 8 February 2017; Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Aligway, 769 Phil. 792, 802-803 (2015).
27 Supra note 19 at 365.
28 Id.
29C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. vs. Taok, 691 Phil. 521, 538 (2012).
30PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 540 Phil citing Reyes v. CA, 456 Phil. 520, 539-540 (2003).
31Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388, 448 (2014) citing Aliling v. Feliciano, 686 Phil. 889, 923 (2012).