SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 247778, February 17, 2021
JEROME D. PALADA, Petitioner, v. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES KAPAL (CYPRUS), LTD, AND KAPAL (CYPRUS), LIMITED, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Assailed in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated February 18, 2019 and the Resolution3 dated June 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 156886. The CA reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated April 2, 2018 and the Resolution5 dated July 23, 2018 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in MVA-100-RCMB-NCR-168-03-06-20176 which awarded total and permanent disability benefits and attorney's fees to Jerome D. Palada (petitioner).
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review filed by the petitioner is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated April 2, 2018 and Resolution dated July 23, 2018, which were both rendered by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board in the case docketed as AC-041-RCMB-NCR MVA-168-03-06-2017 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Hence, this petition.
Respondent Jerome D. Palada is hereby found not to be totally and permanently disabled. As such, the award of full disability benefit and attorney's fees to Respondent Jerome D. Palada are hereby DELETED. Petitioner, however, is hereby ordered to pay respondent his disability compensation in the amount of USD7,465 which is equivalent to Grade 11 disability under the POEA Contract, or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED.25
Petitioner maintains that the Grade 11 disability rating he received was only an interim assessment which was not yet final. He further avers that the fit-to-work assessment was also not definite, certain or final because Dr. Bergonio himself was not sure of the existence of the pain that he is continuously suffering.27I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN UPHOLDING THE QUESTIONED ASSESSMENTS OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT PETITIONER'S DISABILITY IS PERMANENT AND TOTAL IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE AND FINAL ASSESSMENT OF FITNESS OR PERMANENT DISABILITY FROM THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WITHIN THE 240-DAY PERIOD.26
ARTICLE 198. [192] Permanent Total Disability. - x x xMoreover, Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation states:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
(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;
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 any time 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. (Italics supplied.)The employment of seafarers, including claims for disability benefits, is governed by the contracts they executed at the time of their engagement. While it is true that the seafarer and his or her employer are bound by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the applicable POEA-SEC be deemed integrated in every seafarer's employment contract.30
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. -As for the medical findings, it is settled that the medical assessment or report of the company-designated physician must be complete and appropriately issued; otherwise, the disability grading contained therein will not be seriously appreciated.33
A. 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:x x x
- 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 the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32 of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid.
As earlier discussed, the disability rating given to a seafarer must be properly established and contained in a valid and timely medical report of the company-designated physician pursuant to the abovequoted rules. Failure to meet these standards will result in the medical assessment being stricken down for being tardy, incomplete, and doubtful.36
- 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;
- 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;
- 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
- 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.35
Patient reports upper back and chest pain when lifting weights.On November 8, 2016, Dr. Bergonio issued the second medical assessment which cleared petitioner "from an orthopedic standpoint," viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
If patient is entitled to a disability, his closest interim assessment is Grade 11 - slight rigidity or 1/3 loss of lifting power of the trunk.39 (Underscoring omitted; italics supplied.)
Mr. Palada is now 4 weeks out since his alleged injury.A careful perusal of both medical reports reveals that they cannot be considered as complete, final, and definite as neither one showed exactly how the disability rating or the fit-to-work assessments were arrived at. There is no question that the first medical report was merely provisional given Dr. Bondoc's usage of the term "interim assessment" in issuing petitioner a Grade 11 disability rating. As for Dr. Bergonio's medical report, it should be pointed out that the supposed Functional Assessment of petitioner's medical condition by a certain Dr. Basuil referenced therein was not attached to the report. The Functional Assessment is also not in the records of the case which, in itself, renders the existence of the medical assessment doubtful.
His latest chest bucky films show no fracture that could explain his claims of persistent costochondral pain. His Functional Assessment done by Dr. Basuil suggests that he is fit to work.40 (Italics supplied.)
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated February 10, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 4-28.
2Id. at 335-351; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of the Court) with Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate justice Franchito N. Diamante, concurring.
3Id. at 372-373.
4Id. at 244-254; signed by MVA Edgar P. Fernando, Chairman, and MVA Josephus B. Jimenez, and MVA Rosario C. Cruz, Members.
5Id. at 278-279.
6 Referred to as MVA-100-RCMB-NCR-168-05-06-2017 in the Decision dated April 2, 2018 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.
7 See Contract of Employment dated May 6, 2016, rollo, p. 33.
8Id. at 336-337.
9Id. at 337.
10Id.
11Id.
12 See Medical Report of Marine Medical Services dated October 27, 2016, id. at 183.
13Id. at 184.
14 See Medical Report dated December 5, 2016, id. at 65-66.
15 See Complainant's Position Paper, id. at 67-88; Position Paper (For Respondents), id. at 124-149.
16Id. at 244-254.
17Id. at 254.
18Id. at 248, 251.
19Id. at 251.
20Id.
21Id. at 280-308.
22Id. at 335-351.
23Id. at 347.
24Id. at 348.
25Id. at 350.
26Id. at 10.
27Id. at 11.
28Id. at 387-388.
29 See Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. v. Villaflor, G.R. No. 225425, January 29, 2020, citing The Late Alberto B. Javier, et al. v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. et al., 738 Phil. 374 (2014).
30 See C.F. Sharp Crew Mgm't., Inc., et al. v. Legal Heirs of the Late Godofredo Repiso, 780 Phil. 645, 665-666 (2016), citing Inter-Orient Maritime, Inc., et al. v. Candava, 712 Phil. 628, 638 (2013).
31Rollo, p. 33.
32 See Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10 dated October 26, 2010.
33Chan v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020.
34 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
35Id. at 362-363.
36Olidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234 (2015), citing Libang, Jr. v. Indochina Ship Management, Inc., et al., 743 Phil. 286, 299-300 (2014); See also Maunlad Trans, Inc., Karnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Camoral, 753 Phil. 676 (2015) and Carceao v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., et al., 758 Phil. 166 (2015).
37Chan v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, supra note 33.
38Id.
39Rollo, p. 183.
40Id. at 64.
41Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc., et al. v. Atraje, 836 Phil. 1061, 1064 (2018).
42See Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc., et al. v. Macario Mabunay, 820 Phil. 306 (2017).
43See Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Noel M. Andrino, G.R. No. 244270, March 11, 2019.cralawredlibrary