FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 240054, March 18, 2021
SATURNINO A. ELEVERA, Petitioner, v. ORIENT MARITIME SERVICES, INC.,/OSM CREW MANAGEMENT, INC.,/MS. VENUS RICO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated September 5, 2017 and Resolution3 dated May 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the consolidated petitions for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 141374 and CA-G.R. SP No. 141404. Apart from awarding attorney's fees, the assailed CA Decision affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that petitioner Saturnino A. Elevera (Elevera) is only entitled to Grade 3 partial disability benefits, but in the reduced amount of US$39,180.00.
Comments - with intermittent headaches and dizziness, tinnitus, both ears and hearing loss, both earsOn August 30, 2013, Dr. Rosales issued yet another medical report this time diagnosing Elevera with Meniere's Disease and declaring him permanently unfit for sea duties:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Diagnosis - Vestibular Neuronitis
Recommendation:
His suggested disability grading is Grade 10 - slight brain functional disturbance that requires little attendance or aid and which interferes to a slight degree with the working capacity of the patient.10
Diagnosis - Meniere's DiseaseOn September 27, 2013, Elevera filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and reimbursement of medical expenses after OSM Maritime refused to pay him full disability benefits.12
Disposition - permanently unfit for sea duties.11
Diagnosis: Meniere's DiseaseOn the other hand, Elevera, in his Reply, referred to the Medical Evaluation dated February 3, 2014 issued by his own doctor, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo), which states that: (i) he is unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity; (ii) his illness is considered work aggravated/related; (iii) he would require the use of hearing aids for both ears for better hearing and to alleviate symptoms of vertigo; and (iv) he is not expected to land a gainful employment given his medical background.14 As to the causal relation between his work and illness, Elevera emphasized that his 18 years of continuous service within the confines of the engine rooms of OSM Maritime's vessels exposed him to excessive loud and deafening noise, as well as harmful chemicals. To bolster his claim, he quoted medical studies attributing hearing impairment or deafness to exposure to noise or chemicals.15
- Exposure to noise in the engine room/working condition onboard will not aggravate or contribute to seafarer's present medical condition.
- Contributory factors:
- Age
- Diet (increased intake of salt)13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe LA held that Elevera failed to prove that his illness is work related or work aggravated. Although he alleged that his "work [on board] the vessel was confined mainly in the engine room where he was exposed to continuous and deafening engine noise,"18 he still failed to establish that the nature of his work contributed to the development or aggravation of his illness. The LA gave no credence to the Medical Evaluation dated February 3, 2014 of Dr. Vicaldo because it was issued after only a single consultation and without any indication that appropriate tests were conducted to arrive at such opinion. Lastly, the LA dismissed Elevera's other monetary claims for lack of basis.19
SO ORDERED.17 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby issued ordering respondents OSM Maritime Services, Inc. and OSM Crew Management, Inc. to jointly and severally pay complainant Saturnino A. Elevera permanent total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment.Contrary to the findings of the LA, the NLRC held that Elevera's illness is work-related. According to the NLRC, respondents did not refute the medical studies cited by Elevera stating that hearing loss may be caused by "aging, exposure to noise, illness or chemicals and physical trauma or any combination of these."22 Furthermore, Elevera's exposure to deafening noise at the engine room for 18 years under respondents' employ sufficiently established the causal link between his illness and work. The NLRC considered Dr. Rosales' Report dated October 16, 2013 as self-serving and a mere afterthought considering that it was issued only after a complaint had already been filed. As to the extent of Elevera's disability, considering that both Dr. Rosales and Dr. Vicaldo declared him permanently unfit for sea duties, the NLRC concluded that he is suffering from Grade 1 disability and awarded him US$60,000.00 as prescribed under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract23 (POEA-SEC). The NLRC refused to apply the OSM Model Agreement and OSM Extended Insurance Manual, which allegedly grant a higher sum, because no copies thereof were submitted.24
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.21 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
WHEREFORE, complainant's partial Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration is partly GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 January 2015 of this commission is hereby MODIFIED, finding respondents local and foreign agency jointly and severally liable to pay complainant partial disability benefit in the amount of FORTY[-]FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIVE US DOLLARS (US$44,405.00) or its peso equivalent at the time of payment.The NLRC still did not apply the OSM Extended Insurance Manual because Elevera did not present any copy of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) referred to therein, and Elevera did not present proof that he was a member of the union.27
SO ORDERED.26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, OSM's Petition docketed as CA GR SP No. 141374 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.The CA concurred with the NLRC that Elevera's medical condition is work-related. Despite Meniere's Disease not being among the occupational diseases enumerated under the POEA-SEC, Elevera was able to show a reasonable connection between the nature of his work and Meniere's Disease. Elevera rendered 18 years of continuous service to respondents where he was made to work within the confines of the engine room, and was exposed to excessive and deafening noise. And deafness, which may result from having Meniere's Disease, is an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC. The CA, concurring with the NLRC, also disregarded the Report dated October 16, 2013 of Dr. Rosales for being dubious and issued as an afterthought. In addition, the CA also held that the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC does not apply in this case because, at the time Elevera filed his complaint, there were no conflicting findings between the company-designated physician and his personal doctor.
In Elevera's Petition docketed as CA GR SP No. 141404, it is PARTIALLY GRANTED by awarding attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award in favor of Elevera but the amount of US$44,405.00, representing partial disability benefit for injury to petitioner's ears as awarded by the NLRC is decreased to US$39,180.00 in accordance with the Schedule of Disability Allowances under the POEA[-]SEC.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.31
- Whether the present Petition is dismissible for being moot and academic;
- If the Petition is not yet moot, whether the CA committed a reversible error when it upheld the NLRC ruling which held that Elevera is only entitled to disability benefits corresponding to Grade 3 impediment rating; and
- Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it refused to apply the provisions of the OSM Extended Insurance Manual.
The Petition is not moot and academic |
Elevera is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC |
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSIt is, therefore, beyond the labor tribunals' or the court's authority, nay expertise, to make its own medical determination of a seafarer's fitness to work and/or prescribe a disability rating. The POEA-SEC has provided a dispute mechanism wherein the seafarer's fitness to work and/or disability rating may be determined by the company-designated physician, the seafarer's own doctor, or the appointed third doctor, as the case may be.42
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
2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he 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 to 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.
The seafarer shall be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of medicines prescribed by the company-designated physician. In case treatment of the seafarer is on an out-patient basis as determined by the company-designated physician, the company shall approve the appropriate mode of transportation and accommodation. The reasonable cost of actual traveling expenses and/or accommodation shall be paid subject to liquidation and submission of official receipts and/or proof of expenses.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the companydesignated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
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. (Underscoring supplied)
Diagnosis - Meniere's DiseaseIn Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr.,44 the Court outlined the rules respecting the obligation of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive disability assessment, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Disposition - permanently unfit for sea duties.43
In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules (rules) shall govern:Accordingly, the company-designated physician must issue a medical assessment that is final and definitive within the periods provided by law. In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol,47 the Court held that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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;45
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.46
A final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment must clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work or the exact disability rating, or whether such illness is work-related, and without any further condition or treatment. It should no longer require any further action on the part of the company-designated physician and it is issued by the company-designated physician after he or she has exhausted all possible treatment options within the periods allowed by law.48Here, although the Medical Report dated August 30, 2013 of the company-designated physician states that Elevera is "permanently unfit for sea duties,"49 it failed to indicate the appropriate rating corresponding to Elevera's disability. It cannot, therefore, be determined with certainty whether he is suffering from total or mere partial permanent disability. This makes the Medical Report dated August 30, 2013 fatally defective for being incomplete and indefinite.
Anent Saturnino's claim that his contract with OSM was covered by Model Offshore CBA and OSM Extended Insurance, which allegedly increased the maximum disability compensation of its crew members to USD150,000.00, We reject Saturnino's submission thereon. A contrario, We affirm the ruling of the NLRC that Saturnino did not provide proof that he was a member of the union, and the terms of the CBA, upon which he based his claim of increased benefit, were hardly part of the record. Moreover, if indeed there was a CBA concluded between the parties, why did the seafarer not submit his claims to the voluntary arbitrator in accordance with Section 29 of the POEA[-]SEC? At any rate, from the allegation of Saturnino's Petition, the amount of USD150,000.00 appeared to be awarded only to seafarers with Grade 1 impediment rating.55Even so, the documents presented by Elevera still do not support his position. Based on said documents, Elevera must prove that he is a member of OSM crew P&I cover, as well as the terms of the CBA or the Model Agreement. Elevera failed to prove both factual premises.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 10-28.
2 Id. at 30-40. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (a retired Member of the Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court).
3 Id. at 42-43.
4 Orient Maritime Services, Inc. in the Petition.
5Rollo, p. 31.
6 Id. at 120.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 31.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 61.
11 Id. at 62.
12 Id. at 32.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 149-150.
16 Id. at 119-129. Rendered by LA Jenneth B. Napiza.
17 Id. at 129.
18 Id. at 125.
19 Id. at 125-129.
20 Id. at 146-155. Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.
21 Id. at 154.
22 Id. at 151.
23 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10-10, October 26, 2010.
24Rollo, pp. 151-154.
25 Id. at 173-179. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Pres1dmg Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles.
26 Id. at 178; emphasis and italics in the original.
27 Id. at 175-176.
28 Id. at 178.
29 Id. at 30-31.
30 Supra note 2.
31 Id. at 40; emphasis in the original.
32 Id. at 40, emphasis in the original.
33 Supra note 3.
34 Id. at 315-321.
35 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, as amended, Rule VII, Section 14.
36 Id., Rule XI, Section 1.
37 Id., Section 4.
38Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014, 744 SCRA 32, 63.
39Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., G.R. No. 179868, January 21, 2010, 610 SCRA 529, 536.
40 G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015, 755 SCRA 543.
41 Id. at 563.
42 See also Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc., et al. v. Roger P. Solacito, G.R. No. 217431, February 19, 2020.
43Rollo, p. 62.
44 G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 431.
45 Subject to the clarification made by the Court in Henry Espiritu Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services, et al., G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020.
46Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., supra note 44, at 453-454.
47 G.R. No. 213874, June 19, 2019, 905 SCRA 112.
48 Id. at 121.
49Rollo, p. 62.
50 Id. at 54.
51 Id. at 53.
52 Id. at 175, as quoted in the NLRC Resolution, emphasis omitted.
53 Id. at 278-306.
54Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas, G.R. No. 184116, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 157, 165.
55Rollo, p. 39; citations omitted.
56 Section 7. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 10. Money Claims. - x x x
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 solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
x x x x cralawredlibrary