FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019
EDGAR L. TORILLOS, Petitioner, v. EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, AND EMMANUEL L. REGIO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 216165, January 10, 2019
EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, AND EMMANUEL L. REGIO, Petitioners, v. EDGAR L. TORILLOS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Before the Court are two consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari,1 docketed as G.R. Nos. 215904 and 216165, both seeking the reversal of the April 1, 2014 Decision2 and December 15, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130976, which awarded Edgar L. Torillos (Torillos) permanent and total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 and attorney's fees of US$6,000.00.
Antecedent Facts
For a period of 15 years, Eastgate Maritime Corporation (Eastgate), for and on behalf of its foreign principal, F.J. Lines, Inc., Panama, continuously hired Torillos under various contracts. His last contract of employment4 dated November 3, 2010 on board the vessel MV Corona Lions as Chief Cook was duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and was covered by the International Bargaining Forum All Japan Seamen's Union/Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines-International Mariners Management Association of Japan (IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).5 Torillos underwent the requisite Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was found fit for sea duty.6
Torillos boarded the vessel on December 4, 2010. Sometime in November 2011, while in the performance of his duties, Torillos experienced pain in his right leg radiating to his lower extremities. He reported the matter to the Master of the vessel who, in turn, brought him to a hospital in Reihoku, Japan on November 14, 2011. There, he was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary stone in his right urinary tract and was prescribed pain reliever drugs.7 Due to persistent back and leg pains, he was again taken to a hospital in Newcastle, England on December 16, 2011 where the doctor recommended his repatriation for further management and treatment.8
Upon arrival in Manila on December 20, 2011, Torillos was referred to the company-designated physicians of NGC Medical Specialist Clinic, Inc., headed by Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz (Dr. Cruz), for medical evaluation, examination and treatment. He was seen by a urology specialist who recommended Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of his lumbrosacral spine. The MRI conducted on February 9, 2012 revealed that Torillos was suffering from Lumbar Spondylosis; L4-L5 Diffuse Bulge with Resultant Bilateral Neural Foraminal Stenosis; L5-S1 Diffuse Disc Bulge with Radial Tear; and L5-S1 Disc Desiccation.9 Upon recommendation of an orthopedic specialist, Torillos underwent knee X-ray on March 5, 2012, which showed degenerative changes on his left knee.10 Thus, Torillos was referred to and evaluated by a rehabilitation specialist.11 He was advised to undergo physical therapy to address his medical condition.
On April 19, 2012, Dr. Cruz issued a Medical Report with the following findings:
Torillos continued with his physical therapy as well as occupational therapy with the company-designated physicians. However, despite continued therapy sessions, he filed on May 8, 2012 a complaint13 with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Eastgate for payment of permanent total disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness allowance, damages and attorney's fees.
- Lumbar spondylosis is a disorder in which discs and vertebrae degenerate. With aging, the bone of the spine overgrows and narrows the spinal canal.
- It is degenerative in nature and most likely pre-existing.
- The estimated length of further treatment is 2-4 weeks.
- The estimated cost of further treatment is P 5,000.00.
- The interim disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities is Grade 8 - moderate rigidity or two thirds (2/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk.12
Diagnosis: Lumbar Spondylosis; Neural Foraminal Stenosis, L4-L5; Degenerative Disc Disease, L5-S1Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
Given the amount of pain he is experiencing on his lower back and legs, and the associated weakness of his toe flexors, which is essential in the gait cycle, I advise the patient against heavy manual labor, especially lifting heavy objects. In my professional opinion, it would take at least 6 months of regular physiotherapy before the patient can have, if any, improvement in terms of pain relief and motor function of his toes. Physical therapy is further recommended. His present medical condition will prevent him from performing his duties as a seafarer (chief cook). He is therefore deemed not fit for sea duty, or work aboard any seafaring vessel.14
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, respondents CORDIAL SHIPPING, INC. and CAPT. DEVER BESANA are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally complainant ANANIAS F. DANAY the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED US DOLLARS (US$118,800.00) representing permanent total disability benefits, or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.Eastgate appealed to the NLRC. In its Memorandum of Appeal,17 Eastgate, among others, emphasized that the case was decided based on facts and evidence pertaining to another case as revealed by the Labor Arbiter's erroneous citation of the parties' names in the dispositive portion of the decision. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter corrected the disparity by issuing a new Decision18 dated January 3, 2013, which reflected the correct names of the parties in the decretal portion thereof. Thus:
SO ORDERED.16
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, respondents EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION and/or EMMANUEL L. REGIO are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally complainant EDGAR L. TORILLOS the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED US DOLLARS (US$118,800.00) representing permanent total disability benefits, or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.Proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission
SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondents appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated October 29, 2012, as corrected under the Decision dated January 3, 2013 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the respondents are further ordered to pay the complainant attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award or the amount of US$11,880.00 in its Philippine peso equivalent at the time of payment.Eastgate filed a motion for reconsideration.24 This motion was, however, denied in the Resolution25 dated April 30, 2013 of the NLRC.
SO ORDERED.23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated February 28, 2013 of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The disability benefit awarded to private respondent Edgar L. Torillos is reduced to US$60,000.00 in accordance with Section 20 (B)(6) and Section 32 of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels and the award of attorney's fees is correspondingly reduced to US$6,000.00.Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. Eastgate maintained that Torillos' lumbar spondylosis was pre-existing that did not entitle him to permanent disability compensation. Torillos, for his part, sought reconsideration of the CA's reduction of the award of permanent total disability. He insisted that his disability was caused by an accident on board the vessel thus the CBA should have been applied.
SO ORDERED.28
1) | WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ITS APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE IN REDUCING THE AWARD OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS TO SEAMAN TORILLOS. |
2) | WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN NOT APPLYING THE RULING IN THE CASE OF NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, INC./BARBER SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD. V. ESMERALDO C. ILLESCAS (G.R. NO. 183054, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010). |
3) | WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REDUCING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR OF SEAMAN TORILLOS.31 |
Eastgate, on the other hand, argues that Torillos is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA which covers injuries arising only from accident. Neither is Torillos entitled to total and permanent disability compensation under the POEA-SEC since his illness was determined to be degenerative and pre-existing by the company-designated physician. Besides, even if Torillos' illness was considered work-related, he is only entitled to compensation equivalent to Grade 8 disability, as assessed by the company-designated physician, which was an accurate reflection of Torillos' degree of disability. Eastgate also contends that the CA erred in awarding attorney's fees. According to Eastgate, Torillos failed to timely question the decision of the Labor Arbiter denying such claim, and since there was no showing that it acted in bad faith, Torillos' claim for attorney's fees should be denied.A.
IS [TORILLOS] ENTITLED TO TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY UNDER THE POEA-SEC?B.
IS [TORILLOS] ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES?32
Art. 192. Permanent total disability. - x x xMeanwhile, Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation provides:
(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 for in the Rules
x x x x
Thus, the company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or degree of disability within the period of 120 days, which was further extended to 240 days.39 In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,40 the Court pronounced that a temporary total disability becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within the period allowed, or upon expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period in case of absence of a declaration of fitness or permanent disability. In the case of C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok,41 a seafarer may have basis to pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits in any of the following conditions:RULE X
Temporary Total Disability
x x x x
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.
(a) the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lape of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;Upon his repatriation on December 19, 2011, Torillos was given medical attention by the company-designated physicians. He was subjected to rigorous medical examinations, was prescribed medications and was put on therapy to address his condition. On April 19, 2012, Dr. Cruz issued a medical opinion stating, among others, that Torillos' lumbar spondylosis will require further treatment. As such, he gave an interim assessment of Grade 8. Thereafter, Torillos continuously received medical treatment from the company-designated physicians. However, on May 8, 2012, or 141 days since repatriation, Torillos filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. Evidently, it was premature for him at this time to invoke his claim for total and permanent disability inasmuch as the 240-day period had not yet lapsed. At the time he filed his complaint, he was still under temporary total disability. Instead of continuing his treatment which is still within the 240-day period allowed for the company-designated physician to evaluate his condition, he filed a case for total and permanent disability benefits despite the absence of a definite finding from the company-designated physician. He was armed only with the interim assessment of the company-designated physician which did not give him the cause of action for his claim. It was only after the filing of such complaint or on July 9, 2012 that he sought the opinion of his own physician, Dr. Cadag. As such, the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action.43
(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-designated physician;
(c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-8(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
(d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
(e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
(f) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
(g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
(h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.42
Endnotes:
1Rollo (G.R. No. 215904, Vol. I), pp. 30-64; Rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. I), pp. 56-94.
2 Id. at 68-81; id. at 98-111; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (retired Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
3 Id. at 83-87; id. at 113-117.
4 Id. at 112 and 219; id. at 232 and 305.
5 Id. at 113-150 and 229-265; id. at 233-270 and 306-351.
6 Id. at 151-152; id. at 271-272.
7 Medical Repost dated November 14, 20 II, id. at 267; id. at 353.
8 Medical Report dated December 16, 2011, id. at 153-155 and 269; id. at 273-275 and 355.
9 Radiography Report dated February 9, 2012, id. at 157; id. at 277.
10 Radiography Report dated March 5, 2012, id. at 158; id. at 278.
11 Medical Report dated February 13, 2012, March 5, 2012 and March 12, 2012, id. at 276-278; id. at 362-364.
12 Id. at 284; id. at 370.
13Rollo (G.R. No. 215904, Vol. I), pp. 88-89.
14 Id. at 161; rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. I), p. 281.
15 Id. at 311-316; id. at 470-475; penned by Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla.
16 Id. at 316; id. at 475.
17 Id. at 317-354; id. at 430-465.
18 Id. at 357-362; rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. II), pp. 563-568; penned by Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla.
19 Id. at 362; id. at 568.
20 Id. at 363-370; id at 574-597.
21Rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. III), pp. 1233-1248.
22Rollo (G.R. No. 215904, Vol. I), pp. 401-408; rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. I), pp. 20-27; penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez.
23 Id. at 408; id. at 27.
24 Id. at 409-423; rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. III), pp. 1362-1373.
25 Id. at 425-426; rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. I), pp. 29-30.
26 Id. at 428-470; rollo (G. R. No. 216165, Vol. II), pp. 726-765.
27 Id. at 68-8l; Rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. I), pp. 98-111.
28 Id. at 81; id. at 111.
29 Id. at 83-87; id. at 113-117.
30 Torillos' Petition, id. at 30-64; Eastgate's Petition, id. at 56-92.
31 See Memorandum for Edgar L. Torillos, rollo (G.R. No. 215904, Vol. II), p. 780.
32 See Eastgate's Memorandum of Arguments, rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. III), p. 1569.
33Rollo (G.R. No. 215904, Vol. 1), pp. 153-155 and 269; rollo (G.R. No. 216165, Vol. I), pp. 273-275 and 355.
34North Sea Marine Services Corporation v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 201806, August 14, 2017, 837 SCRA 98, 108.
35 646 Phil. 244 (2010).
36 See IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA, rollo (G.R. No. 215914, Vol. I), p. 128.
37 Id. at 284.
38Superior Packaging Corp. v. Balagsay, 697 Phil. 62, 68-69 (2012).
39Centennial Transmarine, Inc., v. Quiambao, 763 Phil. 411, 426 (2015).
40 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
41 691 Phil. 521 (2012).
42 Id. at 538-539.
43TSM Shipping Phils., Inc. v. Patiño, G.R. No. 210289, March 20, 2017, 821 SCRA 70, 84-85.
44G.J.T. Rebuilders Machine Shop v. Ambos, 752 Phil. 166, 183-184 (2015).
45Montierro v. Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., 750 Phil. 937, 948 (2015).
46De Grano v. Lacaba, 607 Phil. 122, 130 (2009).
47 Id.