SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 204845, June 15, 2015
BELCHEM PHILIPPINES, INC/UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, FERNANDO T. LISING, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO A. ZAFRA, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
April 19, 2010On July 5, 2010, much to the petitioners' surprise, Zafra filed a complaint9 for payment of permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.10 Attempts for an amicable settlement of the case failed.
ROBERT D. LIM, M.D.
Marine Medical Services
Metropolitan Medical Center
Re: Mr. Eduardo Zafra, Jr.
Case of 32 year old male, S/P Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Left.
His suggested disability grading is 20% of Grade 10 - stretching leg of the ligaments of a knee resulting in instability of the joint.
Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM CHUASUAN, JR., M.D.8
Final Diagnosis (July 20, 2010) - Probable Medial Meniscal Tear, Left Knee; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear, Left Knee; S/P Arthoroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Left Knee with an incidental finding of Urinary Tract Infection.12On October 21, 2010, the LA declared Zafra entitled to disability benefits in the amount of US$3,590.73.13 The LA reasoned out, among others, that Zafra's claim for the maximum benefit of US$60,000.00 was unsubstantiated considering that (1) the assessment of the company-designated physician of his injury as Grade 10 should be respected; and (2) he failed to present the medical findings showing total and permanent disability. The dispositive portion of the LA decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the respondent Corporation is directed to pay the complainant the amount of US$3,590.73On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the findings of the LA and awarded US$60,000.00 to Zafra after finding his injury permanent and total. It explained that, in disability compensation, what was being compensated was not the injury per se but the incapacity to work. Considering that more than 240 days from date of repatriation had lapsed without any declaration of fitness to work from the company-designated physician, the NLRC found him entitled to receive permanent total disability benefit in the amount of US$60,000.00. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The rest of the claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 21, 2010 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered ordering respondents jointly and solidarity to pay complainant permanent total disability benefit in the amount of US$60,000.00 plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees, or in the total amount of US$66,000.00.Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,16 asserting that the NLRC should have considered the final assessment which was made in accordance with the Schedule of Disability Impediment provided for in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC and issued within the 240-day period. They also challenged the award of attorney's fees amounting to $6,000.00 on the ground that it could only be given when the circumstances warrant the same. In Zafra's case, the petitioners opined that there was no basis for the said award.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.15
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S CERTIORARI, IN THAT:Petitioners are of the position that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC decision for the following reasons:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryTHE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE POEA-SEC AND THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE NLRC'S AWARD OF PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT DESPITE THE LATTER'S PARTIAL DISABILITY ASSESSMENT OF 20% OF GRADE 10 ON THE SOLE BASIS OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S ALLEGATION THAT INCAPACITY FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS HAS AUTOMATICALLY RENDERED HIM PERMANENTLY UNFIT FOR SEA DUTIES.
THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT HE IS INDEED SUFFERING A PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY WHICH WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO US$60,000.II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT ATTORNEY'S FEES.19
1. The CA should not have based the disability compensation on the basis of the number of days a seafarer failed to resume work but on the gradings mentioned in the Schedule of Disability Allowances. The Labor Code provision on disability is not applicable as it is the POEA-SEC that governs the relationship of the parties in this case. Under the POEA-SEC, the injury that a seafarer may have suffered is compensated on the basis of the schedule provided. Accordingly, Zafra should only be entitled to receive the benefit corresponding to Grade 10 disability as assessed by the company-designated physician. It cited Fernandez v. Great Southern Maritime Services, Inc.,20 where this Court affirmed a CA rule that a seafarer's argument that his incapacity to work automatically entitled him to full disability benefits was without merit. The petitioners submit that if it were otherwise, the Schedule of Disability Allowance under the POEA-SEC would be rendered absurd and meaningless.In sum, the petitioners are of the position that Zafra should have been declared by the CA as partially disabled with a Grade 10 disability and entitled to US$3,590.73 only.
2. The CA also erred when it automatically declared Zafra as permanently and totally disabled after the 120-day period lapsed without any certificate of fit to work being issued. Citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services Inc.21 and Crystal Shipping v. Natividad,22 the petitioners would want this Court to apply the rule that even if the seafarer has not been assessed within the 120-day period, this does not automatically make him permanently and totally disabled. Considering that there are injuries that cannot be assessed or treated within the 120-day period, the period may be extended up to the maximum of 240 days if the condition of the seafarer requires further medical attention. Thus, an injury only becomes permanent and total if within the 240-day period, the company-designated physician makes such a declaration after the lapse of the said period, no declaration to that effect was made. In this case, Zafra was assessed with a Grade 10 disability within the 240 day period and, as such, he should have been declared partially disabled, instead of declaring him with permanent and total disability.
3. The CA also erred in concluding that because Zafra was not furnished a copy of the final assessment, the same was of no value. They argue that nowhere in the POEA-SEC or jurisprudence does it state that the medical reports issued by the company-designated doctor are of no value if a copy thereof was not sent to the seafarer.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Accordingly, Zafra prays for the Court's affirmation of his permanent total disability and the right to receive the corresponding full disability benefits.
- The petitioners did not declare his fitness to work or the existence of his permanent disability within the 240-day period.
- The petitioners' medical records of his condition have shown to have remained the same from the time he sustained his injury until August 20, 2010.
- He remains unemployed from the time of his repatriation and is unable to perform the same physical activities he was able to do prior to his injury.
x x x while permanent total disability invariably results in an employee's loss of work or inability to perform his usual work, permanent partial disability, on the other hand, occurs when an employee loses the use of any particular anatomical part of his body which disables him to continue with his former work. Stated otherwise, the test of whether or not an employee suffers from permanent total disability is a showing of the capacity of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for more than 120 or [240] days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in a more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly suffers from permanent total disability regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete,27 the Court emphasized that in determining whether a disability was total or partial, what was crucial was whether the employee who suffered from disability could still perform his work notwithstanding the disability he met.
Final Diagnosis (July 20, 2010) - Probable Medial meniscal Tear, Left Knee; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear, Left Knee; S/P Arthoroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Left Knee with an incidental finding of Urinary Tract Infection.32These circumstances are in accord with Zafra's contention that he should be deemed to be suffering permanent total disability. The CA was correct in ruling in his favor, being consistent with jurisprudence.
The company-designated physician failed to give a definitive impediment rating of Carcedo's disability beyond the extended temporary disability period, after the 120-day period but less than 240 days. By operation of law, therefore, Carcedo's total and temporary disability lapsed into a total and permanent disability.Verily, there is no question that Zafra has remained in a state of disability that has become permanent and total considering that no certification, compliant with the POEA-SEC and the Labor Code, was issued within the 120/240-day period.[Emphasis Supplied]
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, per Special Order No. 2056, dated June 10, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 66-79, penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, concurring.
2 Id. at 81-82. penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, concurring.
3 Id. at 132-137. Penned by Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr.
4 Id. at 123-130. Penned by Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, with Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., concurring.
5 Id. at 181.
6 Id. at 165.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 166.
9 Id. at 139-140.
10 See CA Decision, id. at 68.
11 Id. at 50. As admitted by the petitioner.
12 Id. at 321.
13 See LA Decision, id. at 132-137.
14 Id. at 137.
15 Id. at 129.
16 Id. at 84-113.
17 622 Phil. 761 (2009).
18Rollo, p. 79.
19 Id. at 37-38.
20 G.R. No. 177801, Minute Resolution dated August 6, 2007.
21 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
22 510 Phil. 332 (2005).
23Rollo, pp. 421-433.
24Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 176884, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 642, citing Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 624 Phil. 523 (2010), further citing Section 2, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code.
25 Id.
26 271 Phil. 196 (1991).
27 677 Phil. 262 (2011).
28Alpha Ship Management Corporation, et. al. v. Calo, G.R. No. 192034, January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 119.
29 636 Phil. 358 (2010).
30 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. (Emphasis Ours).
31 Id.
32Rollo, p. 321.
33 G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 624, 626.
34 G.R. No. 201072, April 2, 2014, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/201072.pdf> (Last visited: May 12, 2015). In this case, the Court said: "Sibug was repatriated and arrived in the country on January 15, 2007 after his Ryndam injury. He had surgery on his injured hand. On September 7, 2007, the company-designated doctor issued a medical report that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete disability. But this medical report failed to state the degree of Sibug's disability. Only in an email dated September 28, 2007, copy of which was attached as Annex 3 of petitioners' position paper, was Sibug's disability from his Ryndam injury classified as a grade 10 disability by the company-designated doctor. By that time, however, the 240-day extended period when the company-designated doctor must give the definite assessment of Sibug's disability had lapsed."
35 G.R. No. 177578, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 134, 147-148.
36 G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary