SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 224344, September 13, 2021
EDGARDO I. MABALOT, Petitioner, v. MAERSK - FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. AND/OR A.P. MOLLER A/S, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the September 21, 2015 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128803, which set aside the October, 31, 2012 Decision3 and December 12, 2012 Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) awarding permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees to petitioner Edgardo I. Mabalot (Mabalot), and reinstated the June 29, 2012 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) adjudging Mabalot's entitlement only to Grade 11 disability benefits. The appellate court's April 22, 2016 Resolution6 affirmed its earlier Decision.
Factual Antecedents:
This case stemmed from a Complaint7 for payment of permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees filed by Mabalot on March 5, 20128 against Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and/or A.P. Moller A/S (respondents).9
Mabalot was deployed as Able Seaman by Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. to its foreign principal A.P. Moller A/S on board "Maersk Stepnica" on March 4, 2011 for a period of six months, with a basic monthly salary of $585,00, exclusive of overtime pay and other benefits.10 The results of his pre-employment medical examination showed that Mabalot was fit for sea duty.
Mabalot thus embarked on his sea duties. However, in July 2011, he complained to the ship master that he was experiencing pain on his left shoulder. He was thus advised to seek medical treatment upon the ship's arrival at the port of Japan.
On October 8, 2011, Mabalot underwent medical examination in Honmoku Hospital where he was diagnosed with "Omarthritis."11 He was medically repatriated on October 15, 2011 and was advised to consult Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II (Dr. Alegre), the company-designated physician for Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc„, for a more thorough evaluation and treatment.
On November 3, 2011, Dr. Alegre assessed Mabalot to be suffering from "Frozen Shoulder"12 Mabalot underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which yielded the following impression:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"Supraspinatus and Subscapularis TendinosisBased on the MRI results, Dr. Alegre recommended Arthroscopic Debridement and Possible Repair of Anterior Labrum as treatment.14 However, Mabalot informed Dr. Alegre that he wished to seek a second opinion from a doctor of his choice and asked to postpone his treatment.15 Dr. Alegre thus advised Mabalot to continue with his physical therapy and consult a Rehabilitation Medicine Specialist.16
Attenuated Anterior Labrum for which tear cannot be excluded. Recommend Direct MR Arthrography if clinically indicated
Minimal Subacromial-Subdeltoid Bursitis"13
WHEREFORE, Respondents MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. and A.P. MOLLER A/S are solidarily liable to pay the Complainant the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS (US$8,800.00) representing his disability benefits, and ten (10%) percent thereof, or EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY U.S. DOLLARS (US$880.00) as and for attorney's fees, or their peso equivalent at the time of payment.Ruling of the National Labor
SO ORDERED.20
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED and the Decision dated 29 June 2012 is MODIFIED. Respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay Complainant 1) permanent total disability benefits of US$80,000,00 at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; and 2) attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.The NLRC found Mabalot's disability to be total and permanent since more than 120 days had already lapsed from the time of his repatriation on October 15, 2011 until the filing of the Complaint on March 5, 2012, yet he still had limited range of movement on his left shoulder and arm and was still under the medical treatment of the company-designated physician and his own physician.
SO ORDERED.23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, given the wanton exercise of discretion, the assailed Decision dated October 31, 2012 and Resolution dated December 12, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby REVERSED while the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated June 29, 2012 is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.The CA opined that the assessment of a seafarer's disability is lodged with the company-designated physician who has a better knowledge of a seafarer's condition. The CA ratiocinated as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.27
Therefore, for purposes of claiming disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the CBA, Dr. Alegre's February 2, 2012 Medical Report, which assessed Mabalot's disability to Grade 11 prevailed over Dr. Jacinto's March 5, 2012 Medical Certificate, which declared him unfit to resume work as seaman.Mabalot filed a Motion for Reconsideration29 but the CA denied the same in its April 22, 2016 Resolution.30
What can hardly be ignored, too, aside from the Medical Certificate dated March 5, 2012, was Mabalot's failure to show for how long Dr. Jacinto treated him, or if he conducted any other diagnostic test for his findings, as compared to the extensive treatment provided by Dr. Alegre from November 3, 2011, to February 2, 2012. Therefore, the declaration of Dr. Alegre should be given credence, considering that he was more qualified to assess the disability grade of Mabalot.
Moreover, the basis of Dr. Jacinto's evaluation was merely the medical findings of the company physician. Again, in Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc., the Court ruled that the opinion of the company-designated physician should be upheld over that of the doctor appointed by the seafarer considering that the premise of the seafarer's doctor merely jibed with the medical findings of the company physician.28 (Citations omitted)
I. That the Honorable Court of Appeals has committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it modified the judicious finding of facts and conclusion of the Honorable NLRC.Mabalot argues that the appellate court committed grave and palpable error when it gave more weight to the assessment of Dr. Alegre despite the contrary findings of the NLRC. Mabalot insists that his disability was total and permanent citing as basis the diagnosis of Dr. Jacinto as well as the fact that despite the lapse of 120 days, he still experiences pain on his left shoulder and arm.
II. That the Honorable Court of Appeals has committed palpable error, grave abuse of discretion and arbitrariness when it swallowed hook, line and sinker the inaccurate, speculative and downgraded disability assessment of Grade 11 made by respondent's company designated physician.
III. That the Honorable Court of Appeals has committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it did not consider that petitioner is indeed already rendered totally unfit for work as he is no longer capable of performing the usual physical, strenuous and stressful activities which is the usual function of the seafarers on board the vessel and that he is unfit for work for more than 240 days already and his unfitness for work is continuing up to now.31
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSIn Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol,37 the Court summarized the rules governing the seafarer's claim for disability benefits, as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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. x x x 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.
x x x
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 company-designated 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.
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 Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Hernandez, Jr.,38 the Court went further in enumerating the instances when the seafarer may already pursue a case for full disability benefits, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.
(a) the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;A final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment must clearly state the seafarer's fitness to work or his 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.39
(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-designated physician;
(c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
(d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
(e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
(f) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
(g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
(h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.
x x x 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 initial 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 total 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.43 (Citations omitted)In this case, instead of heeding the advice of Dr. Alegre, Mabalot opted to consult Dr. Jacinto on March 5, 2012 who then diagnosed Mabalot unfit to work due to permanent total disability. On even date, or 142 days after his medical repatriation but within 240 days therefrom, Mabalot filed the Complaint for recovery of permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 9-36.
2 Id. at 38-49. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a retired Member of the Court) and Francisco P. Acosta.
3 CA rollo, pp. 36-45. Penned by Commissioner Nieves E, Vivar-De Castro and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra.
4 Id. at 47-48.
5 Id. at 246-254.
6Rollo, pp. 51-52.
7 CA rollo, pp. 118-132.
8 Id. at 40.
9 Id. at 121,
10Rollo, p. 104.
11 Id. at 105.
12 Id. at 106.
13 CA rollo, pp. 137-138.
14Rollo, p. 107.
15 Id. at 108.
16 Id. at 109.
17 Id. at 110.
18 CA rollo, p. 139.
19 Id. at 246-254.
20 Id. at 253-254.
21 Id. at 255-290.
22 Id. at 36-45.
23 Id. at 44.
24 Id. at 47-48.
25 Id. at 3-35.
26Rollo, pp. 135-167.
27 Id. at 38-48.
28 Id. at 47-48.
29 CA rollo, pp. 482-505.
30Rollo, pp. 51-52.
31 Id. at 16-17.
32 SECTION 14. FINALITY OF DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. – (a) Finality of the Decisions, Resolutions or Orders of the Commission. – Except as provided in Section 9 of Rule X, the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Commission shall become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the counsel or authorized representative or the parties if not assisted by counsel or representative.
33 356 Phil. 811, 823 (1998).
34Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio, 818 Phil. 321, 336 (2017).
35 As per Opposition of Respondents to Mabalot's Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals; CA rollo, pp. 507-531.
36Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. v. Bingbing, G.R. No. 236271, April 3, 2019, citing Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., 814 Phil. 820 (2017)
37 G.R. No. 213874, June 19, 2019, citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quioque, 765 Phil. 341, 362-363 (2015).
38 829 Phil. 624, 634 (2018), citing C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, 691 Phil. 521, 538-539 (2012).
39Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol, supra note 36.
40Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019. Citations omitted.
41 Id.
42 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
43 Id. at 912.
44 See Guadalquiver v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprise, Inc., G.R. No. 226200, August 5, 2019.
45 Id., citing Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Hernandez, Jr., supra note 38.
46 See Guadalquiver v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., supra note 44.
47The Late Alberto B. Javier V. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 738 Phil 374, 389 (2010).
48 Id„ citing Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. Honrado, 652 Phil. 331, 339 (2016).
49 Id., citing Auza, Jr. v. MOL Philippines, 699 Phil. 62, 67 (2012).cralawredlibrary