FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 230901, December 05, 2019
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., AND/OR GARY M. CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, v. ALLAN F. BUICO, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated October 13, 2016 and Resolution3 dated March 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144772, which denied petitioners’ petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Aggrieved, Buico appealed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
1) Declaring [Buico] as suffering from Grade 10 disability[; and]
2) Ordering [petitioners Magsaysay], Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. and Gary M. Castillo to jointly and severally pay [Buico] disability benefit in the amount of US$10,075 or in its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment.
All other claims are dismissed or lack of merit.
So Ordered.20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of [Buico] is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 30, 2015 is hereby MODIFIED in that [petitioners] are hereby ORDERED to solidarily pay [Buico] the amount of US$60,000 as permanent a d total disability compensation plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees.In a Resolution25 dated January 21, 2016, the NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition with the CA.
SO ORDERED24
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSPursuant to the above provisions, when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury, the employer is obligated to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician who has to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation.36 However, if there is no definitive declaration because the seafarer required further medical attention, then the period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.37 The case of Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol 38 succinctly summarized the rules governing seafarers' claims for total and permanent disability benefits as follows:
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer whet the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:x x x x
2. x x x However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, be shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled o his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
xxxx
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied)
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;In the case at bar, while the company-designated physician had issued both the Final Medical Report and Disability Grading on December 1, 2014 - beyond the initial 120-day period from repatriation which ended on November 6, 2014 - there was sufficient justification for such failure to give a timely medical assessment and to extend the period of diagnosis and treatment because Buico had required further medical treatment. As found by the CA, Buico had religiously undergone therapy from August 19, 2014 until November 28, 2014.40 The Final Medical Report and Disability Grading was thus timely issued by the company-designated physician within the extended 240-day period which ended on March 6, 2015.
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and. treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and •total; regardless of any justification.39(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On December 1, 2014, [Buico] was reevaluated by Orthopedic Surgery service. At this time, he has completed a total of 36 sessions of physical therapy. Subjectively, the patent reported intermittent right foot pain of VAS 4110 felt on prolonged walking and stair climbing. Objectively, [the] latest x-ray dated November 4, 2014 showed healed fracture with implants in place. Patient was able to tolerate full weight bearing, however there was note of a limping gait. Residual limitation in range of motion on the right ankle was noted. No other treatment intervention was indicated for the patient aside [from] continued self guided home exercises and as need d intake of pain medication. Mr. Buico was deemed maximally medically improved for the Orthopedic condition referred.42 (Emphasis supplied)The Disability Grading43 also issued by the company-designated physician on the same date contained the following statement:
Should it be needed, [the] disability grading that closely corresponds to the patient's present functional capacity, in accordance [with] the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract, Section 32 (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Disease or Illness Contracted), Lower Extremities, Malleolar fracture with displacement of the foot inward or outward, is a Grade 10 disability.44 (Emphasis supplied; italic in the original)After perusing the above excepts, the Court disagrees with the findings of the CA and NLRC. The above documents show that the findings of the company-designated physician as to Buico's disability were final, accurate, and precise, especially since there was a specific disability grading and since it stated that there was no other treatment intervention indicated for Buico. It is likewise noteworthy that the disability grading given by the company-designated physician was a result of several months of diagnosis and treatment. In fact, this Grade 10 disability rating was already given to Buico at least twice as an interim disability grading, thereby further lending credence to the assessment given by the company-designated physician.
Endnotes:
* Stated as "Cruises" in some parts of the rolla and CA rollo.
*Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2726 dated October 25, .2019.
1Rollo, pp. 3-40.
2 Id. at 41-50. Pe1med by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court).
3 Id. at 52-53.
4 Id. at41-42.
5 Id. at 42.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 CA rollo, pp. 126-127.
14 Id. at 128.
15 Rollo, p. 4>3.
16 CA rollo,pp.l31-132.
17 Rollo, p. 43.
18 CA rollo, pp. 68-75. Penned by Labor Arbiter Remedios L.P. Marcos.
19 Id. at 71-72.
20 Id. at 75.
21 Id. at 57-66. Penned by Commissioner Alan A. Ventura and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gregorio 0. Bilog, III and Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus.
22Rollo, p. 44; CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
23 Id.; Id. at 60-62.
24 CA rollo, p. 65.
25 Id. at 77-79.
26 Rollo, pp. 41-50.
27 Id. at 48.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 55-75.
30 Id. at 52-53.
31 Id. at 76.
32 Id. at 79-80.
33 Id. at 84-85.
34Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. v. Atraj , G.R. No. 229192, July 23, 2018,
35Mighty Corp. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery. 478 Phil. 61 , 639-640 (2004).
36Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November 19,2018, p. 7.
37 Id. at 8-9.
38 G.R. No. 213874, June 19,2019.
39 Id. at 6.
40Rollo, p. 42.
41 CA rollo, pp. 126-127.
42 Id. at 127.
43 Id. at 128.
44 Id.
45 2010 POEA-SEC, Sec. 20 states:SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESSThe liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxxx
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied)
46Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., supra note 36, at 11.
47Esteva v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 225899, July 10, 2019, p. 11.
48 INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc. v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774, 787 (2014).
49 Esteva v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., supra note 47, at 12.