THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 245960, July 14, 2021
UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES, INC. AND/OR HOLLAND AMERICA LINE WESTOURS, INC. AND/OR JOSE GERONIMO CONSUNJI, Petitioners, v. JUANITO P. ALKUINO, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated August 10, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated March 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148218 which sustained the Decision4 dated August 8, 2016 of the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB)-Panel of the Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) finding Juanito P. Alkuino, Jr. (respondent) entitled to permanent and total disability benefits in the amount of US$72,000.00 with modification in that Jose Geronimo Consunji (Consunji), the owner and president of United Philippines Lines, Inc. (UPLI), is absolved from any liability.5
[Respondent] continues to experience back pain. His back is stiff, making it difficult for him to bend and pick up objects from the floor. He could not lift heavy objects. Sitting or standing for a long time, makes his discomfort worse. He has difficulty running and climbing up or going down the stairs. The demands of a Seaman's work are heavy. [Respondent] has lost his pre injury capacity and is not capable of working at his previous occupation. He is now permanent[ly] disable[d].19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOn August 28, 2015, respondent informed UPLI of the findings of his doctor of choice and requested that his case be referred to a third doctor. UPLI ignored respondent's request. Thus, respondent filed a complaint for payment of total and permanent disability benefits with the NCMB-PVA.20
In the instant case, the company-designated physician failed to certify the complainant's fitness to return to sea duty; thus admitting his permanent disability. The company-designated physician states that the disability suffered by the complainant is Grade 8 disability but was not declared able to work in any other capacity as seafarer. In the absence of such certification, the law presumes that the employer remains in a state of temporary disability and should no certification be issued until the lapse of 240 days maximum period, the temporary disability becomes permanent in nature.
Thus, the Panel rules to grant permanent and total disability benefits to the Complainant.26chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The company-designated physician issued a final medical assessment within the reglementary period of 120 days. |
x x x [T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days in1tial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability 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 toted disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.34 (Italics supplied.)As pronounced above, the company-designated physician may declare the seafarer fit to work or permanently disabled, either partially or totally, within the 120 or 240-day treatment period.
In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:As explained above, the following requisites must be met in determining the seafarer's condition: (1) the assessment on the seafarer's disability grading must be issued within the period of 120 or 240 days, as the case may be; and (2) the assessment must be final and definitive.
- 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.36 (Italics supplied).
The disability of respondent is partial and permanent. |
The assessment of the company-designated physician prevails over the assessment of respondent's doctor of choice. |
Even granting that the complaint should be given due course, we hold that the company-designated physician's assessment should prevail over that of the private physician. The company-designated physician had thoroughly examined and treated Rosales from the time of his repatriation until his disability grading was issued, which was from February 20, 2006 until October 10, 2006. In contrast, the private physician only attended to Rosales once, on November 9, 2006. This is not the first time that this Court met this situation. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn this case, the company-designated physician had thoroughly examined and treated respondent from the time of his repatriation until his disability grading was issued from April 16, 2015 until August 5, 2016. Under the care of the company-designated physician, respondent was diagnosed with "disc degeneration, L4-L5" and underwent treatments, MRI, and PT sessions. The company-designated physician determined the need of respondent to undergo surgery but he refused. Notably, the company-designated physician even referred respondent to another Orthopedic Spine Surgeon who recommended that he must undergo surgery. However, respondent declined and instead chose to have sessions of treatment and PT which the company-designated physician provided until August 5, 2015. In contrast, Dr. Magtira attended to respondent only once, or on August 21, 2015.
Respondent is entitled to the compensation benefits provided under the HAL AMOSUP CBA. |
It is well settled that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by law, by the parties' contracts, and by the medical findings. By law, the relevant statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 [formerly Articles 191 to 193] of the Labor Code of the Philippines in relation to Section 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. By contract, the material contracts are the POEA-SEC which is deemed incorporated in every seafarer's employment contract and considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable to the government, the parties' CBA, if any, and the employment agreement between the seafarer and the employer.51chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryArticle 22.2.352 of the CBA between Holland (as represented by UPLI) and AMOSUP provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"22.2.3 DISABILITY INSURANCE - An Officer/Petty Officer who suffers an illness or injury during the term of the Individual Employment Contract, through no fault of his/her own, including accidents or illnesses occurring while traveling to or from the Vessel at the request of the COMPANY or its agent, or as a result of a marine peril and whose ability to work is reduced as a result thereof, will receive from the COMPANY, in addition to his/her Vacation Pay, a disability compensation calculated on the basis of the POEA's schedule of disability or impediment for injuries at a percentage recommended by the COMPANY designated Physician. The amount of US$60,000.00 will be the basis in arriving at the amount payable by the COMPANY.53chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe above-quoted provision of the CBA is clear: the injured seafarer shall be entitled to a disability compensation calculated on the basis of the POEA's schedule of impediment at the grade recommended by the company-designated physician. The amount of US$60,000.00 will be the basis in arriving at the amount payable.
33.59% (degree of disability) x US$60,000.00 = US$20,154.00.All told, respondent is entitled to a partial and permanent disability benefit in the amount of US$20,154.00.
Consunji, the owner and president of UPLI, is solidarily liable with UPLI in the amount of US$20,154.00 |
SEC. 10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damage. x x xSection 10 of RA 8042, as amended, expressly provides for joint and solidary liability of corporate directors and officers with the recruitment/placement agency for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to Overseas Filipino Workers.56 While a corporate director, trustee, or officer who entered into contracts in behalf of the corporation generally cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of the latter, in deference to the separate and distinct legal personality of a corporation. their personal liability may validly attach when they are specifically made by a particular provision of law, as in this case.57 Thus, in the recent case of Sealanes Marine Services Inc., et al. v. Dela Torre,58 the Court had sustained the joint and solidary liability of the manning, agency, its foreign principal and the manning agency's President in accordance with Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended.59 Indubitably, Consunji, as the owner and President of UPLI, is solidarily liable with the latter in the amount of US$20,154.00 representing respondent's partial and permanent disability benefits.
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. (Italics supplied.)
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 35-69.
2Id. at 16-29; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel Robeniol, with Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3Id. at 31-33.
4Id. at 170-178; penned by MVA Leticia Sablan with MVA Bayani G. Diwa and MVA Rodolfo G. Palattao, concurring.
5Id. at 28.
6Id. at 17.
7Id. at 294-312.
8Id.
9Id. at 170.
10Id. at 279.
11Id. at 17.
12Id. at 18.
13Id. at 19.
14Id. at 39.
15Id. at 249-250.
16Id. at 250.
17 See Disability Grading, id. at 251.
18Id. at 18.
19Id. at 285.
20Id. at 18.
21Id. at 224-246.
22Id. at 228.
23Id. at 230
24Id. at 241-243.
25Id. at 170-178.
26Id. at 176.
27Id. at 16-29.
28Id. at 25.
29Id. at 27.
30Id. at 31-33.
31Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc. v. Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc., G.R. No. 237036, July 8, 2020, citing Soriano, Jr. v. NLRC, 550 Phil. 111, 125 (2007).
32Id.
33 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
34Id. at 912.
35 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
36Id. at 362-363.
37Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019, citing Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November 19, 2018.
38Id., citing Orient Hope Agencies, Inc., et al. v. Jara, 832 Phil. 380, 396 (2018) and Olidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234, 245 (2015).
39Id. citing Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., 806 Phil. 505, 519 (2017).
40 702 Phil. 717 (2013).
41Id. at 731.
42Gomez v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., 815 Phil. 401, 419 (2017), citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al. supra note 29 at 912.
43 806 Phil. 505 (2017).
44Galant Maritime Corp. v. Land, G.R. No. 209239 (Notice), July 8, 2020, citing Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, 510 Phil. 332, 340 (2005).
45Id., citing Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., supra note 43 at 521.
46Id.
47Silagan v. Southfield Agencies, Inc., et al., 793 Phil. 751, 763-764 (2016).
48 744 Phil. 774 (2014).
49Id. at 789.
50 G.R. No. 223295, March 13, 2019.
51Id.
52Rollo, p. 307.
53Id.
54 Approved on June 7, 1995.
55 Entitled, "An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8042, Otherwise Known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as Amended, Further Improving the Standard of Protection and Promotion of the Welfare of Migrant Workers, Their Families and Overseas Filipinos in Distress, and for Other Purposes," approved on March 8, 2010.
56Domasing v. Siarot, G.R. No. 225444 (Notice), February 19, 2018.
57Id.
58 754 Phil. 380 (2015).
59Id. at 390-391.cralawredlibrary