SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 213679, November 25, 2015
JAY H. LICAYAN, Petitioner, v. SEACREST MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC., CLIPPER FLEET MANAGEMENT, A/S AND/OR REDENTOR ANAYA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the March 4, 2014 Decision2 and the July 23, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130891, which reversed and set aside the March 27, 2013 Decision4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), affirming the August 31, 2012 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), in a complaint for disability and claim for sickness benefits, damages and attorney's fees.
The Antecedents
Petitioner Jay H. Licayan (Licayan) was hired as Fitter for the vessel, MT Clipper Ann, by its local manning agent, respondent Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. (Seacrest), for and in behalf of its foreign principal Nordic Tankers Marine. They executed a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) -approved Contract of Employment which provided for the Standard Terms and Conditions governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels. Licayan underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and, thereafter, was declared fit for sea service.
On March 23, 2011, Licayan boarded the vessel for his duties as Fitter for a period of seven (7) months with a basic salary of US$698.
In addition to his main duties as Fitter, Licayan was also tasked to install water and oil separation fixtures and the safety equipment of the engine and the steel platforms which served as the path walk of the crew whenever the vessel was loaded with chemicals.
On September 7, 2011, Licayan suddenly felt a severe headache. He called the attention of the Master who recommended that he be examined by a doctor at the next port of call. For the time being, he was given Tylenol to relieve the pain. The Master also referred the matter to the health provider of the principal so that he could be examined by a psychiatrist.
Upon reaching the port of Cartagena, Colombia, on September 15, 2011, he was brought to Medihelp Hospital where he underwent laboratory examinations. He was initially diagnosed to be suffering from vertigo and anxiety disorder. Consequently, he was given medicines, Betazok and Zolpiden.
On September 16, 2011, the attending physician made a definitive finding that Licayan was suffering from Trastorno or Panic Disorder. Accordingly, he was recommended to be repatriated.
Upon arrival in Manila on September 20, 2011, Licayan was advised by his agency to report to the company-designated doctor, Dr. Natalio Alegre (Dr. Alegre), for treatment and management. He was directed to undergo a series of tests at St. Luke's Medical Center, to wit: blood test, hematology, x-ray on his cervical spine, 2D echo with Doppler, stress test, and ECG.
On January 25, 2012, or after more than 120 days from his initial treatment, Dr. Alegre issued a certification with his conclusion that Licayan was suffering from Panic Disorder, Muscular Spasm-Cervical and Hypertension and that he was "unfit to work."6
Licayan then underwent a more comprehensive treatment at the National Center for Mental Health. He was given medications for his illness, but his condition did not improve.
In the hope of recovering from his mental illness, Licayan sought the opinion of Dr. Elias Adamos (Dr. Adamos), a clinical psychologist of the Perpetual Succor Hospital in Manila, who certified, on July 2, 2012, that he was incapacitated to work permanently as a seafarer. Dr. Adamos' medical findings were as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxx
Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Work-related); Anxiety Disorder associated with or secondary to toxic chemical exposure;
Axis II: None; Axis III; None;
Axis IV: Seafare job; Excessive anxiety and worry (apprehensive expectation) occurring in persistence over the last 10 months; Work stress;
Axis V: Clinical course and prognosis is unpredictable.
cralawlawlibrary
His serious medical, mental and psychological condition is equivalent to Grade l under the Standard Contract of POEA. He is therefore permanently incapacitated to work as a seafarer.7
[Emphasis supplied]cralawlawlibrary
At this juncture, We would like to point out the utterly misplaced assumption of the Labor Arbiter and public respondent that private respondent's diagnosis of Panic Disorder can be likened to that of the medical condition called schizophrenia or psychosis which the High Court declared to be compensable in Cabuyoc v. Inter-Orient Navigation, et al. The NLRC and the Labor Arbiter exceeded their authority in similarly attributing private respondent's state to a special mental condition such as schizophrenia when no declaration had ever been espoused by the company-designated physician and even by private respondent's own doctor who were both in the dominance to posit a peculiar medical analysis such as psychosis. Also, there had been no indication in private respondent's position paper of particular incidents on board the vessel which might have contributed to private respondent's head trauma and later on, the same developed as panic attacks, except for the sweeping and general statements that he was constantly exposed to perilous chemicals in installing water and oil separation fixtures.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated March 27, 2013 and the Resolution dated May 15, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth Division, in LAC No. OFW-M-11-001035-12 [NLRC-OFW-M-04-05890-12] are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed in the proceedings below for recovery of total permanent disability benefits is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.9cralawlawlibrary
GROUNDS: I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT LICAYAN HAS NOTHING TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM OF WORK RELATEDNESS;II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT LICAYAN SUFFERED AN INCIDENT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO HIS PANIC ATTACK;III
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING TO LICAYAN THE PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.10cralawlawlibrary
xxx
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxx
6. 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.cralawlawlibrary
Section 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.cralawlawlibrary
xxx
7. Complainant was always exposed to the harsh conditions of the elements, the perils at sea, severe stress while being away from his family and fatigue while doing his duties and responsibilities on board the vessel.
8. This demanding nature of his job was his routine since he boarded the vessel. For this reason, he was not able to have proper rest. He has also an irregular sleep pattern since he is on call by his supervisor 24 hours a day.
9. Notwithstanding the extraordinary work load, Mr. Licayan was given an overall assessment of a conscientious worker with good engineering knowledge and experience on sea trade. A copy of the evaluation is hereto attached as ANNEX "C" and "C-i."
10. In addition to the principal functions and duties as Fitter, Mr. Licayan [would] perform and install the water and oil separation fixtures. This job can only be done normally when the vessel is on dry dock so that the equipment are properly installed and fixed. However, due to excellence skill and dexterity of Mr. Licayan, he is asked by his superiors to do the same while the vessel was on voyage.
11. He also would install the safe equipment of the engine. He would also install the steel platforms which serve as the path walk of the crew when the vessel is loaded with chemicals.
12. This extraordinary difficult job [of] Mr. Licayan unduly put him into pressure resulting to loss of sleep, loss of appetite and emotional disorder.
xxxx21[Emphases Supplied]cralawlawlibrary
xxx
Mr. Licayan is diagnosed with Panic Disorder. Panic disorder is a type of anxiety disorder in which one has repeated attacks of intense fear that something bad will occur when not expected. The cause is unknown but genetics may play a role, xxx.22cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 2282, dated November 13, 2015.
** Per Special Order No. 2281, dated November 13, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 23-49.
2 Id. at 50-60; Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3 Id. at 61-62.
4 CA rollo, pp.44-51.
5 Id. at 224-231. Penned by Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio.
6 Id. at 143.
7 As quoted in the petition, rollo, p. 38.
8 Id. at 17.
9 Id. at 18-19.
10 Id. at 39.
11 Id. at 42.
12 Id. at 44-45.
13 Id. at 67-77.
14 Last visited on October 22, 2015.
15 Last visited on October 22, 2015.
16Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 198096, July 8, 2015.
17Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc. v. Bengson, G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014.
18Racelis v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 198408, November 12, 2014.
19Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, G.R. No. 200566, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 494, 511.
20DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gazzingan, G.R. No. 199568, June 17, 2015.
21 CA rollo, pp. 97-98. 22
22 Id. at 94.
23 Last visited on October 22, 2015.
24Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Velasquez, 591 Phil. 839, 849-850 (2008).
25Ison v. Crewserve, Inc., G.R. No. 173951, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 481, 493-494.
26Krestel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 795, 816.