SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016
JAKERSON G. GARGALLO, Petitioner, v. DOHLE SEAFRONT CREWING (MANILA), INC., DOHLE MANNING AGENCIES, INC., AND MR. MAYRONILO B. PADIZ, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Court's resolution are the Motion for Reconsideration1 and Motion for Partial Reconsideration2 filed by petitioner Jakerson G. Gargallo (petitioner), and respondents Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. (Dohle Seafront), Dohle Manning Agencies, Inc. (Dohle Manning), and Mr. Mayronilo B. Padiz (Padiz; collectively, respondents), respectively, of the Court's Decision3 dated September 16, 2015, which affirmed the Decision4 dated June 10, 2014 and the Resolution5 dated November 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130266, dismissing petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits, but ordered respondents Dohle Seafront and Dohle Manning, jointly and severally, to pay petitioner his income benefit for one hundred ninety-four (194) days, plus 10% of the total amount of the income benefit as attorney's fees.
It is undisputed that petitioner was repatriated on March 11, 2012 and immediately subjected to medical treatment. Despite the lapse of the initial 120-day period on July 9, 2012, such treatment continued due to persistent pain complained of by petitioner, which was observed until his 180th day of treatment on September 7, 2012. In this relation, the CA correctly ruled that the tiling of the complaint for permanent total disability benefits on July 20, 2012 was premature, and should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action, considering that at that time: (a) petitioner was still under the medical treatment of the company-designated physicians within the allowable 240-day period; (b) the latter had not yet issued any assessment as to his fitness or disability; and (c) petitioner had not yet secured any assessment from his chosen physician, whom he consulted only more than two (2) months thereafter, or on October 2, 2012.There being no cogent reason to depart from the aforementioned ruling, the Court denies petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration insofar as it seeks to reinstate the NLRC's ruling finding petitioner entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
Moreover, petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed procedure under the afore-quoted Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor, in case the seafarer's personal doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician's fit-to-work assessment. The [2008-2011 ver.di. IMEC IBF CBA (IBF CBA)] similarly outlined the procedure, viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn the recent case of Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr. [(see G.R. No. 206285, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 104, 117-118)], involving an almost identical provision of the CBA, the Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the seafarer's non-compliance with the mandated conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA militates against his claims, and results in the affirmance of the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
25.2 The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated jointly between the Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor shall be final and binding on both parties. xxxx 25.4. A seafarer whose disability, in accordance with 25.2 above is assessed at 50% or more shall, for the purpose of this paragraph, be regarded as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity and be entitled to 100% compensation. Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the Company-nominated doctor, shall also be entitled to 100% compensation. Any disagreement as to the assessment or entitlement shall be resolved in accordance with clause 25.2 above.The [POEA-SEC] and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician.
If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician's assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them.
Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail. xxx24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SECTION. 10. Money Claims. - xxxSection 10 of RA 8042, as amended, expressly provides for joint and solidary liability of corporate directors and officers with the recruitment/placement agency for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). While a corporate director, trustee, or officer who entered into contracts in behalf of the corporation generally. cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of the latter, in deference to the separate and distinct legal personality of a corporation from the persons composing it, personal liability of such corporate director, trustee, or officer, along (although not necessarily) with the corporation, may validly attach when he is made by a specific provision of law personally answerable for his corporate action,29 as in this case. Thus, in the recent case of Sealanes Marine Services, Inc. v. Dela Torre,30 the Court had sustained the joint and solidary liability of the manning agency, its foreign principal and the manning agency's President in accordance with Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.28 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Dated November 25, 2015. Rollo, pp. 139-147.
2 Dated November 17, 2015. Id. at 148-159.
3 See id. at 126-137.
4 Id. at 14-34. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
5 Id. at 36-37.
6 See September 16, 2015 Decision; id. at 128.
7 Id. at 127.
8 Id. at 128.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 See id. at 129.
12 See id. at 129-130.
13 The LA ordered respondents, jointly and severally, to pay petitioner US$ 156,816.00 or its peso equivalent as his permanent total disability benefits, while the NLRC reduced said amount to US$125,000.00 (see id. at 129).
14 See id. at 130.
15 Id; underscoring supplied.
16 Id. at 130-131.
17 Id. at 136.
18 Id. at 135.
19 Id. at 136.
20 Id.
21 See id. at 139-147 and 148-159.
22 Id. at 143.
23 Id. at 144.
24 Id. at 134-135.
25cralawred See id. at 145-146.
26 Entitled "AN ACT TO INSTITUTE THE POLICIES OF OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISH A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 1995.
27 Entitled "AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2010.
28 See Section 7 of RA 10022.
29 See Queensland-Tokyo Commodities, Inc. v. George, 644 Phil. 574, 584 (2010).
30 See G.R. No. 214132, February 18, 2015, 751 SCRA 243, 254-255.
31 See Section 1 (f), Rule II, Part II of the POEA Rules.
32 See Halili v. Justice for Children International, G.R. No. 194906, September 9, 2015.
33 See Section 18, Article II, and Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
34 See Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014, 732 SCRA 22, 69-70.
35Rollo, p. 336.
36 Id. at 135.
37 Id. at 153.
38 Section 1 (A) (2) of the 2030 POEA-SEC provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 1. DUTIES
A. Duties of the Principal/Employer/Master/Company:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryxxxx39Rollo, p. 155. Respondents claimed that they have already reported petitioner for coverage under the SSS, and duly remitted his monthly SSS and ECC contributions from October 2013 to February 2012. See Annexes 3-MR to 3-S attached to respondents' Motion for Partial Reconsideration; id. at 167-186.
- To extend coverage to the seafarers under the Philippine Social Security System (SSS), Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) and Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund), unless otherwise provided in multilateral or bilateral agreements entered into by the Philippine government with other countries. (Emphases supplied)
40 <https://www.sss.gov.ph/sss/appmanager/pages.jsp?page=employeescompensation> (visited August 12, 2016).
41Rule X
TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY
SECTION. 1. Condition to Entitlement — An employee shall be entitled to an income benefit for temporary total disability if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) He has been duly reported to the System;
(2) He sustains the temporary total disability as a result of the injury or sickness; and cralawlawlibrary
(3) The System has been duly notified of the injury or sickness which caused his disability.
His employer shall be liable for the benefit if such illness or injury occurred before the employee is duly reported for coverage to the system. (Emphasis supplied)
See also https://www.sss.gov.ph/sss/appmanager/pages.jsp?page=employeescompensation (visited August 12, 2016).
42 See Rollo, pp. 156-158.
43 See Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co., Inc., G.R. No. 182208, October 14, 2015, citing Philippine National Construction Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation, 710 Phil. 389, 395-396 (2013).
44 See Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co., Inc.; id. See also Diaz v. Encanto, G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016; Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. v. St. Francis Square Realty Corporation, G.R. Nos. 198916-17 and 198920-21, January 11, 2016; and CCC Insurance Corporation v. Kawasaki Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 156162, June 22, 2015, 759 SCRA 332.
45 G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 287.
46 Id. at 299.