THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 222523, October 03, 2018
JOSE JOHN C. GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CELEBRITY CRUISES, AND CARLOS C. SALINAS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the September 10, 2015 Decision1 and the January 14, 2016 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132711.
The case traces its roots to a Complaint3 filed by petitioner Jose John C. Guerrero (Guerrero) for permanent and total disability benefits, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, moral damages and attorney's fees against respondents Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI), Celebrity Cruises (CC), and/or Carlos Salinas (Salinas) [collectively, respondents].
A series of conferences between Guerrero and respondents were held before the Labor Arbiter (LA), but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. Hence, the LA required the parties to submit their respective position papers.
In his Position Paper,4 Guerrero alleged that on August 15, 2011, he was employed by PTCI, represented by its President, Carlos Salinas, on behalf of its principal, CC, as a Casino Dealer on board the vessel GTS Constellation for a period of six (6) months with a basic monthly salary of US$255.00. Prior to embarkation, he underwent pre-employment medical examination at Metrics Center, Makati City, and was declared "fit to work as a seaman." He boarded the vessel on October 12, 2011. His duties and responsibilities as a casino dealer include having an understanding of all the games he will operate, dealing cards, distributing dice, operating game apparatus such as roulette wheel or baccarat wheel, as well as keeping an eye on patrons to make sure they are not cheating, and the gamblers are having a good time.
Guerrero averred that: sometime in January 2012 during a gastro-intestinal outbreak in the ship, he and other crew members were tasked and ordered to bring elderly guests out of the ship through wheelchairs; since the platform was not levelled with the ship's door exit, and the bridge connecting the platform and the door exit was too steep, they decided that the best way to move and transfer the elderly passengers was by pulling the wheelchairs; while he was pulling a wheelchair with a passenger, a sudden motion occurred which caused him to lose his balance but managed to prevent the wheelchair, the passenger and himself from falling; in order to keep the passenger safe, he had to push the wheelchair really hard to gain control over it; after said incident, he started experiencing back pains which he just ignored due to the demands of his work as a casino dealer; to manage his back pain, he took mefenamic acid tablets and applied pain relieving liniment and hot water on the painful area; and later, his back pain became unbearable prompting him to consult the doctor of the vessel who prescribed him pain reliever medication and sleeping pills.
While his vessel was docked at a port in the Caribbean, Guerrero underwent a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedure at the Isle Imaging Center of St. George, Caribbean, and after which, the attending physician made the following Impression: Findings revealed changes of Lumbar Spondylosis involving L2-3, L3-4, L4-5 disc causing of compression of left L5 and bilateral L4 roots as described. No cords conus abnormality seen.5 In view of his medical condition, he was recommended for medical repatriation. Upon his arrival in Manila on March 26, 2012, Guerrero immediately reported to respondents and was referred to the Manila Doctors Hospital and the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for post-employment medical examination and for further treatment. He underwent a series of physical therapy sessions at the Orthopedics Department of the PGH under the supervision of the company-designated physician/surgeon, Dr. Adrian Catbagan (Dr. Catbagan). On October 19, 2012, a major surgery called Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion L3-L4 & L4-L5 was performed on Guerrero by Dr. Catbagan at the Manila Doctors Hospital. On November 19, 2012, Dr. Catbagan issued a Medical Certificate6 stating that Guerrero was confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital on October 19, 2012 and was discharged on November 9, 2012 with the following final diagnosis: Degenerative Disc Disease & Disc Herniation L3-L4 & L4-L5 Moyamoya Disease, resolved. After Guerrero's surgery, he continued his therapy sessions with Dr. Catbagan until January 15, 2013.
Guerrero alleged that since the pain still persisted notwithstanding the medical procedures performed on him, he consulted, on January 17, 2013, Dr. Cesar H. Garcia (Dr. Garcia), an orthopedic surgeon/bone and joint disease, who issued on even date a medical certificate7 declaring him "UNFIT for further sea service in whatever capacity as a SEAFARER." Guerrero alleged that despite his permanent unfitness for further sea service as determined by his physician, respondents failed to compensate him of permanent and total disability benefits. He maintained that he sustained a spinal injury due to an accident arising out, and in the course of, his employment.8
In their Position Paper,9 respondents maintained that Guerrero is not entitled to disability benefits because he sustained the alleged injury during an incident at the crew gym. Respondents adduced in evidence documents denominated as Crew Injury Statement,10 dated March 22, 2012, and Personal Injury Illness Statement11 in support their submission.
Respondents alleged that the essential duties of Guerrero as a Casino Dealer are reflected in the Job Description Manual. They contended that going to the gym and the use of gym facilities are not part of Guerrero's job and could not have any relation to his duties as a Casino Dealer. Respondents theorized that disability benefits are compensable only when the seafarer, such as Guerrero, suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. They posited that Guerrero's injury is not compensable since it has not arisen from a work-related incident. Respondents alleged that Guerrero's claim for damages and attorney's fees are bereft of any factual and legal basis stressing that they had faithfully complied with their contractual obligation to him and had even provided him with extensive medical attention for humanitarian consideration. By way of counterclaim, respondents alleged that the filing by Guerrero of a baseless complaint tarnished their reputations and were constrained to engage the services of an attorney to protect their rights. For these reasons, they prayed that they should be awarded damages of P200,000.00 attorney's fees and cost of litigation in the sum of P400,000.00.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS [INC.]/CELEBRITY CRUISES, jointly and severally, liable to pay JOSE JOHN GUERRERO the amount of US DOLLARS: SIXTY THOUSAND (US$60,000.00) or its peso equivalent at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment representing his total permanent disability benefits and attorney's fees.The LA ruled that although Guerrero's injury had resulted from a gym incident, the same would not release respondents PTCI and CC from their liability for disability benefits. It held that Guerrero's medical condition has rendered him permanently incapacitated to be a seafarer, as found by his chosen physician, Dr. Garcia. Lastly, it observed that Guerrero has been incapacitated to work for more than 120 days from the date he was repatriated and seen by the company-designated physician.
Mr. Carlos Salinas is hereby EXCLUDED/DROPPED as party-respondent in this case.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the case DISMISSED for UTTER LACK OF MERIT.The NLRC ruled that Guerrero is not entitled to disability benefits and payment of his other monetary claims because his injury is not work-related or not an injury sustained while working on-board the vessel. The NLRC added that apart from Guerrero's assertion, no other evidence was adduced to support and corroborate his "wheelchair theory," which incident allegedly caused his injury.
SO ORDERED.16
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 31 July 2013 and Resolution dated 13 September 2013 issued by public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, in NLRC LAC No. 05-000495-13 are hereby AFFIRMED.The CA held that the challenged decision of the NLRC was in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence and that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can be imputed against said labor tribunal.
SO ORDERED.18
On JAN 22, I went to the gym to do my usual workout after that I felt pain on my lower back. I went to see a doctor on that day and gave me 24 hrs. to rest after that I go back to work, but everytime I bend, I felt something painful on my left buttock so I decided to see the doctor again on March 4 after that the pain keeps coming back ever since.The occurrence of the aforesaid incident was confirmed in a document denominated as Personal Injury Illness Statement which provided, inter alia, the following:
x x x x
Were you on duty at the time of the injury? No. It's my long break. I decided to go to gym to keep myself fit & healthy.
Please state what you could have done to avoid the accident? Do proper workout.28
Brief Desc: Persistent painful lower back since heavy lifting in crew gymThese documentary evidence effectively belied Guerrero's insistence that he incurred the injury during the wheelchair incident. Guerrero's strenuous physical activity consisting of frequent bending and improper lifting of heavy objects during his routine workout at the crew gym on January 22, 2012 produced extreme torsional stress on his back which caused his subject injury. As aptly contended by the respondents, there is nothing in the Job Description Manual which states that part of Guerrero's duty as a Casino Dealer is to go to the crew gym and use its facility for his physical workout. Verily, Guerrero failed to prove work-causation of the subject injury. It may not be amiss to state at this juncture that the LA, the NLRC and the CA have similarly concluded that Guerrero's injury resulted from his crew gym workout on January 22, 2012.
Incident cause: SPORTS RELATED
Primary Factor: HUMAN ERROR
Lighting Type: Artificial Light-Bright
Location Condition: Clean
Involved Equipment Desc: gym
Equipment Condition: Good Working Order
Protective Gear Desc: Did Not Wear
Sometime in January 2012, he was involved in a medical call due to gastro-intestinal problem of an elderly. Together with a fellow crew, they placed the elderly on a wheelchair, but due to big waves, the vessel suddenly swayed before they could pass the platform of the bridge. As a consequence, petitioner was out of balanced and fell with his back landed first on the metal floor.34Nowhere in any of his pleadings filed before the labor tribunals and the CA was there any mention that Guerrero accidentally fell with his back hitting the metal floor during the wheelchair incident. His conflicting and inconsistent statements cast serious doubt on the veracity of his wheelchair theory. Obviously, Guerrero willfully made such false statements in his futile attempt to deceive the labor tribunals, the CA and this Court that he suffered a work-related injury so as to obtain a favorable judgment. Thus, for not coming to court with clean hands and in order to prevent him from profiting from his own deception, basic rules of fair play dictate that we should deny his claim for disability benefits all the more.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2588 dated August 28, 2018.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Pedro B. Corales, concurring; rollo, pp. 15-25.
2Id. at 27.
3Id. at 85-86.
4Id. at 89-111.
5Id. at 116.
6Id. at 120.
7Id. at 121-124.
8Id. at 90-96.
9Id. at 139-150.
10Id. at 157.
11Id. at 158-160.
12Id. at 142-148.
13 Penned by Labor Arbiter J. Potenciano F. Napenas, Jr., id. 187-195.
14Id. at 195.
15 Penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora, with Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus, concurring; id. at 339-357.
16Rollo, pp. 356-357.
17Id. at 368-369.
18Id. at 24.
19CBL Transir, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 469 Phil. 363, 371 (2004).
20Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 310, 318 (2001).
21Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
22Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 630 Phil. 352, 362-363 (2010).
23NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. v. Talavera, 591 Phil. 786, 800 (2008).
24Racelis v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., 746 Phil. 758, 768 (2014).
25InterOrient Maritime Enterprise, Inc. v. Creer III, 743 Phil. 164, 183 (2014).
26Ceriola v. NAESS Shipping Philippines, Inc., 758 Phil. 321, 337 (2015).
27Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Obrero, 794 Phil. 481, 488 (2016).
28Rollo, p. 157.
29Commissioner on Internal Revenue v. Puregold Duty Free, Inc., 761 Phil. 419, 434-435 (2015).
30Ayala Land Inc. v. Castillo, 667 Phil. 274, 297 (2011).
31Rollo, p. 119
32Id. at 236-247.
33Id. at 239.
34Id. at 34. (Underscoring ours).
35Saludaga v. Hon. Sandiganbayan 4th Division, 633 Phil. 369, 383 (2010).
36Feliciano v. Villasin, 578 Phil. 889, 905 (2008).
37Julie's Franchise Corp. v. Hon. Judge Ruiz, 614 Phil. 108, 116 (2009).