THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238358, May 12, 2021
VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, JX OCEAN CO., LTD. and/or C/E JOSEPH ALVIN S. OLABRE, Petitioners, v. MANUEL G. NOBLEFRANCA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
"[F]or [an] illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had."1
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated May 9, 2018, of petitioners Virjen Shipping Corporation, JX Ocean Co., Ltd. and/or C/E Joseph Alvin S. Olabre seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision3 dated November 16, 2017 and the Resolution4 dated March 15, 2018, both of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149457.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Private respondent, Manuel G. Noblefranca (Noblefranca), had worked for petitioner local manning agent Virjen Shipping Corporation, for and on behalf of its foreign principal, petitioner JX Ocean Co. Ltd.,5 for 23 years. He was initially hired as an ordinary seaman on October 24, 1991, and was promoted to an able seaman on April 26, 1993. He then became a pump man on April 14, 2003, and continued to work as such. His latest contract with petitioner was executed on November 26, 2014 for a nine (9) month contract as pump man on board M.T. Eneos Ocean and with a monthly basic salary of US$649.00. He boarded the said vessel on December 21, 2014, after being declared "fit to work" following the required pre-employment medical examination (PEME) conducted in October 2014.6
As a pump man, Noblefranca had the responsibility of ensuring the safe and proper operation of the liquid cargo transfer system. He had to monitor, repair, and maintain all the pumps, fittings, valves, and other parts necessarily related to the said system, which work likewise entailed repacking valves and glands, as well as lubricating parts and bearings. Aside from that, he was required to be proficient in shipboard engineering casualty drills, fire drills, and collision drills, as he was expected to take the initiative in emergency situations with specific orders or instructions. He regularly worked for eight to 16 hours a day, and was on call even during his hours of rest to make certain that the vessel is seaworthy and that the voyage would be safe.7
On March 21, 2015, Noblefranca reported for duty at around 8:30 in the morning to conduct maintenance at the engine room inasmuch as the main valve and fittings required reconditioning. At around 10:30 in the morning, he attended to his personal needs and was surprised when he urinated blood. He was first treated on board, but was later brought to Kawasaki Rinko Hospital on March 31, 2015, where he underwent a Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan of his abdomen. It was then discovered that he had an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Thereafter, he was repatriated on April 2, 2015, and was admitted at the Manila Medical Center. On April 20, 2015, he was transferred to the Philippine Heart Center where the delicate surgical operation was done. Thereafter, he was re-admitted at the Manila Medical Center on April 30, 2015 and was finally discharged on May 12, 2015.8
Noblefranca continued to take medication and to regularly see the company-designated physician for check-up until the latter terminated his treatment on October 19, 2015. Noblefranca lamented that no final disability assessment was issued to him, and sadly, petitioners refused to provide further medical assistance. Noblefranca pleaded petitioners for aid, in consideration of his 23 years of continuous and efficient service, but the latter turned down his request. He sought a second opinion from Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Donato-Tan) concerning his illness. The diagnosis, however, was that he is permanently unfit for sea duties. Hence, Noblefranca filed a complaint to claim disability benefits under the IMMAJJSU/PSU-IBF Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which, as stated in his Contract of Employment, covered his tenure.9
To refute the complaint, petitioners averred that the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz (Dr. Cruz), opined in a medical report dated April 7, 2015 that "[a]bdominal aortic aneurysm is a bulge or dilatation in the wall of the aorta that passes through the abdomen. It tends to run in families and to occur in people who have high blood pressure, especially those who smoke. It is not work-related." This was issued long before the 120-day period expired.10
Petitioners likewise pointed out that they shouldered the medical expenses of Noblefranca from the time he was examined at Kawasaki Rinko Hospital in Japan up to his aortic surgical operation and succeeding treatments in the Philippines. They also argued that the IMMAJ-JSU/PSUIBF CBA cannot apply, since Noblefranca failed to prove that his contract was covered thereby.11
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.Aggrieved by the LA's Decision, Noblefranca elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for review.
Likewise, all other claims are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.14chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated April 29, 2015 is hereby AFFIRMED.On October 6, 2016, petitioners received Noblefranca's motion for reconsideration.17
SO ORDERED.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainant dated September 23, 2016, relative to the Decision of the Commission dated August 24, 2016, We resolve to DENY the same as the motion raised no new matters of substance which would warrant reconsideration of the Decision of this Commission.Thus, Noblefranca elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 149457.
SO ORDERED.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated 24 August 2016 and the Resolution dated 26 October 2016 of the National Labor Relations Commission are ANNULED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents Virjen Shipping Corporation and/or JX Ocean Co., Ltd. are ORDERED TO PAY petitioner Manuel G. Noblefranca total and permanent disability benefits equivalent to the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars (US$60,000.00) or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.The CA ruled that refusal to pay disability benefits on the basis of a mere statement by the company-designated physician that the illness is not work-related is unavailing. Although the company-designated physician is tasked with assessing the illness of a seafarer and the degree of his or her disability, such assessment is neither conclusive nor final and thus, cannot bind the courts which must still weigh the merit of the same as against the factual milieu of the case.22 The CA opined that in this instant case, it is undeniable that Noblefranca had worked for petitioners for 23 long years. He endured the physical hardships entailed by his tasks as an able bodied seaman for about 12 years, before working as a pump man for 11 more years. Any kind of work or labor ordinarily stresses and strains the physical body resulting in wear and tear of the muscles and organs. However, as a seafarer, Noblefranca had to suffer a great degree of emotional strain as well, fighting off homesickness while being subjected to the perils of the sea. It is not surprising then that Noblefranca's illness developed or, at the very least, was affected by his employment as a seafarer.23
SO ORDERED.21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I.
The Court of Appeals acted on a gross miscomprehension of facts which resulted in the misapplication of law and existing jurisprudence thereby reaching legal conclusions that are not only contrary to the facts conclusively established by uncontroverted evidence on record, but also manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible, based as they were on speculations, surmises and conjectures when it annulled and set aside the factual determination of BOTH the Labor Arbiter and the illness of the [Noblefranca], ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSM, is NOT WORK-RELATED.II.
The Court of Appeal s acted on a gross miscomprehension of facts which resulted in the misapplication of law and existing jurisprudence thereby reaching legal conclusions that are not only contrary to the facts conclusively established by uncontroverted evidence on record, but also manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible, based as they were on speculations, surmises and conjectures when it disregarded the medical reports of the company-designated physician which unequivocally stated that the illness of the private respondent is NOT WORK-RELATED.III.
The award of US$60,000.00 cannot be sustained without any substantial evidence to prove that the private respondent is suffering from a GRADE 1 DISABILITY or even a WORK-RELATED ONE.IV
The mere fact that an illness which lasted for more than 120 days equates to a WORK-RELATED and GRADE 1 DISABILITY without any medical evidence to support the same cannot be used as legal basis for awarding full disability benefits under the POEA Contract.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is settled that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari before this Court as we are not a trier of facts. Our jurisdiction in such a proceeding is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. It is not the function of the Court to reexamine or reevaluate evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, adduced by the parties in the proceedings below.27chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryFactual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, however, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence.28 The rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted when at least one of these exceptions exist, to wit: "1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; 2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; 6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; 7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; 8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; 10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and, 11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion."29 Thus, where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency, as in this case, this Court is constrained to review and resolve the factual issue in order to settle the controversy.30
Noblefranca's illness is work-related, therefore compensable. |
The entitlement of an overseas seafarer to disability benefits is governed by law, the employment contract, and the medical findings.Since Noblefranca was employed in 2014, the 2010 POEA-SEC governs the procedure for compensation and benefits for a work-related injury or illness suffered by a seafarer on board sea-going vessels during the term of his contract.
By law, the seafarer's disability benefits claim is governed by Articles 191 to 193, Chapter VI (Disability benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation to Rule X, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.
By contract, it is governed by the employment contract which the seafarer and his employer/local manning agency executes prior to employment, and the applicable POEA-SEC that is deemed incorporated in the employment contract.
Lastly, the medical findings of the company-designated physician, the seafarer's personal physician, and those of the mutually-agreed third physician, pursuant to the POEA-SEC, govern.39chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The following diseases are considered as occupational when contracted under working conditions involving the risks described herein:It is undisputed that the above conditions have also been met because as abovementioned, Noblefranca was already suffering from high blood pressure and hypertension at the time of his employment. While performing his regular sea duties, he found blood in his urine, was immediately treated on board, and then brought to Kawasaki Rinko Hospital. He was later repatriated and admitted to Manila Medical Center and was eventually transferred to Philippine Heart Center where he had his surgical operation for his Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. The foregoing proves that his illness is indeed work-related.
x x x
11. Cardio-vascular events. - to include heart attack, chest pain (angina), heart failure or sudden death. Any of the following conditions must be met:
- If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reasons of the nature of his work.
- The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be sufficient severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac insult to constitute causal relationship.
- If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship.
Settled is the rule that for illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.45
Noblefranca's illness had become total and permanent in view of the lapse of the 120/240 window. |
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.59
- 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.58
Endnotes:
1Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel, 707 Phil. 210, 225 (2013).
2Rollo, pp. 30-60.
3 Id. at 14-24; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
4 Id. at 26-28.
5 Id. at 32.
6 Id. at 15.
7 Id. at 15-16.
8 Id. at 16.
9 Id. at 16-17.
10 Id. at 17.
11 Id.
12 Not attached to the rollo.
13Rollo, p. 17.
14 Id. at 34.
15 Not attached to the rollo.
16Rollo, p. 35.
17 Id.
18 Not attached to the rollo.
19Rollo, p. 35.
20 Id. at 14-24.
21 Id. at 23.
22 Id. at 21.
23 Id. at 21-22.
24 Id. at 26-28.
25 Id. at 36-37.
26 G.R. Nos. 224438-40, September 3, 2020.
27 Id.
28De Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., 805 Phil. 531, 538 (2017).
29Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc., 729 Phil. 156, 165 (2014).
30The Peninsula Manila v. Jara, G.R. No. 225586, July 29, 2019.
31Rollo, p.59.
32 Id. at 136-160.
33 Id. at 150.
34 Id. at 153.
35 Id. at 155.
36 Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995; approved on June 7, 1995.
37 Rate of Interest in the Absence of Stipulation; effective on July 1, 2013.
38 743 Phil. 371 (2014).
39 Id. at 385.
40Illustricimo v. NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., G.R. No. 237487, June 27, 2018, 869 SCRA 182, 191-192.
41Rollo, p. 20.
42 Id.
43 G.R. No. 217123, February 6, 2019.
44 707 Phil. 210 (2013).
45 Id. at 225.
46Corcoro, Jr. v. Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc., G.R. No. 226779, August 24, 2020.
47Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., 806 Phil. 505, 522-523 (2017).
48Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 588 Phil. 895, 912 (2008).
49Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corporation, 817 Phil. 598, 611-612 (2017).
50Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018.
51Rollo, p. 17.
52 Id. at 18.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 19.
56 Id.
57 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
58 Id. at 362-363.
59Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 241674, June 10, 2020.
60Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, 832 Phil. 380, 407 (2018).
61 G.R. No. 237063, July 24, 2019.
62 G.R. No. 213731, August 1, 2018.
63 716 Phil. 267 (2013).cralawredlibrary