THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 213731, August 01, 2018
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC./MANNY SABINO AND/OR NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., Petitioners, v. JOWELL P. SANTOS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GESMUNDO, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the May 20, 2014 Decision1 and the July 30, 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132805. The CA reversed and set aside the July 30, 2013 Decision and September 24, 2013 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated the November 23, 2012 Decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA), a case for permanent and total disability benefits of a seafarer.
The Antecedents
Jowell P. Santos (respondent) was hired as an environmental operator by C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., (CF Sharp) for and in behalf of its principal, Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., collectively known as petitioners, on board the vessel "MIS Norwegian Gem" for a period of nine (9) months. He was deployed on September 9, 2011.
Sometime in December 2011, respondent experienced dizziness, over fatigue, frequent urination and blurring of the eyesight. He was brought to the ship's clinic for initial medical examination and was found to have elevated blood sugar and blood pressure. He was immediately referred to Cape Canaveral Hospital in Miami, Florida, USA, where he was found to have a history of diabetes and has been smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for ten (10) years.
On January 12, 2012, respondent was repatriated to the Philippines. The next day, or on January 13, 2012, he was immediately referred to CF Sharp's company-designated physicians at the Sachly International Health Partners Clinic (SIHPC). The physicians subjected respondent to different tests and treatments, which were recorded in several medical reports. It was confirmed that he had Diabetes Mellitus II and hypertension. Respondent was advised to continue his medications.
On May 4, 2012, respondent was examined by a nephrologist who noted that he was asymptomatic with a blood pressure (BP) of 120/70. His urinalysis and serum creatinine were normal. Thus, he was cleared from a nephrological standpoint and was again advised to continue his maintenance medications.
Thereafter, after 118 days from repatriation, the company-designated physicians issued a certification stating that respondent's condition was not work-related and that his final disability grading assessment for hypertension and diabetes was Grade 12.3
Unconvinced, respondent consulted Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Donato-Tan), a specialist in Internal Medicine and Cardiology. In her medical certificate, Dr. Donato-Tan noted that respondent had high blood pressure and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. She also opined that respondent's condition was work-related due to the pressure in the cruise ship, which elevated his blood pressure, and that the food therein was not balanced, which elevated his blood sugar. She concluded that respondent was permanently disabled to discharge his duties as a seafarer.4
Hence, respondent filed a complaint for disability and sickness benefits with damages before the LA.
The LA Ruling
In its decision dated November 23, 2012, the LA ruled in favor of respondent. It found that respondent suffered from permanent and total disabilities due to his hypertension and diabetes. The LA also awarded the maximum benefits provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioners and respondent. The dispositive portion of the LA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering respondents C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., and/or Norwegian Cruise Line LTD., to pay, jointly and severally, complainant Jowell P. Santos the aggregate amount of NINETY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY THREE AND 66/100 US DOLLARS (US$91,633.66) or its Philippine peso equivalent at the time of actual payment, representing permanent disability benefits and sickness wages, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as and for attorney's fees.Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appeal is partly GRANTED. The decision dated 23 November 2012 is MODIFIED. The grant of total and permanent disability benefits is set aside but the award of sickness pay in the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Three US Dollars and 66/100 (US$1,633.66) remains. In addition, appellants are ordered to pay appellee the sum of Five Thousand Two Hundred TwentyFive US Dollars (US$5,225.00) as financial assistance for his illness.Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC in its resolution dated September 24, 2013.
SO ORDERED.6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision dated July 30, 2013 and the resolution dated September 24, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division) in NLRC NCR-OFW-M-04-06542-12, NLRC LAC No. 01-000071-13 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision dated November 23, 2012 of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED.Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its resolution dated July 30, 2014.
SO ORDERED.7
Petitioners argue that the medical certificate of respondent's physician of choice should not have been considered because the conflicting medical assessments were not referred to a third doctor under the POEA-SEC. They also assert that diabetes is not listed as a work-related illness under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, hence, not compensable. Petitioners further claim that respondent's hypertension was not compensable because it does not involve an end organ damage for essential hypertension. They likewise highlighted that the mere lapse of the 120-day period does not result in the grant of total and permanent disability benefits because the timely medical findings of the company-designated physicians must be respected. As the said physician only gave a Grade 12 disability, petitioners conclude that respondent is only entitled to US$5,225.00.I
WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA) STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (SEC) WERE COMPLIED WITH BY THE PARTIES.II
WHETHER RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS DUE TO HIS HYPERTENSION AND DIABETES.
ART. 192. Permanent Total Disability x x xOn the other hand, the rule referred to - Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, which implemented Book IV of the Labor Code (IRR) 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 in the Rules;
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.These provisions should be read in relation to the POEA-SEC wherein Sec. 20(A) (3) states:
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.10In Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad11 (Crystal Shipping), the Court ruled that "[p]ermanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body."12 Thereafter, litigant-seafarers relied on Crystal Shipping to claim permanent and total disability benefits because they were incapacitated to work for more than 120 days.
1. 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;Finally, in Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias,16 the Court reaffirmed: (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.17
2. 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;
3. 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
4. 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.15
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.21The referral to a third doctor is mandatory when: (1) there is a valid and timely assessment by the company-designated physician and (2) the appointed doctor of the seafarer refuted such assessment.22
In the absence of any request from Constantino (as shown by the records of the case), the employer-company cannot be expected to respond. As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law itself recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor's findings are correct, as well as the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company must itself respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation.25In this case, petitioner's chosen physician, Dr. Donato-Tan, issued a medical certificate indicating a total and permanent disability because of hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes, which conflicted with the assessment of the company-designated physicians. Glaringly, respondent only presented a lone medical certificate from Dr. Donato-Tan, which was in contrast with the extensive and numerous medical assessment of the company-designated physicians. Consequently, the credibility and reliability of Dr. Donato-Tan's medical certificate is doubtful.
Very truly yours, |
(SGD) |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 39-49; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
2 Id. at 71-72.
3 Id. at 41.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 7.
6 Id. at 8.
7 Id. at 49.
8 Id. at 78-90.
9 Id. at 107-130.
10 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, October 26, 2010.
11 510 Phil. 332 (2005).
12 Id. at 340.
13 588 Phil. 895, 912 (2008).
14 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
15 Id. at 362-363.
16 773 Phil. 428 (2015).
17 Id. at 443.
18 See INC Shipmanagement, Inc., et al. v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774, 785-786 (2014).
19 Id. at 786.
20Rollo, p. 41.
21 Supra note 16 at 446.
22 Id.
23 Supra note 18.
24 738 Phil. 564 (2014).
25 Id. at 576.
26 20. Essential Hypertension
Hypertension classified as primary or essential is considered compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting in permanent disability; Provided, that the following documents substantiate it: (a) chest x-ray report, (b) ECG report, (c) blood chemistry report, (d) funduscopy report, (e) Ophthalmological evaluation, (f) C-T scan, (g) MRI, (h) MRA, (i) 2-D echo U) kidney ultrasound and (k) BP monitoring.
27 Id.
28Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 208314, August 23, 2017.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31Status Maritime Corp., et al. v. Spouses Delalamon, 740 Phil. 175, 198 (2014).
32 Id.
33 See Schedule of Disability Allowances under the POEA-SEC where Grade 12 is US$50,000.00 x 10.45%, or US$5,225.00.
34 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).