THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219265. September 16, 2020.]
CREWTECH SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. AND EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, petitioners,vs. GERARDO C. TAGAMOLILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219265 (CREWTECH SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. AND EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, petitioners v. GERARDO C. TAGAMOLILA, respondent). — This Petition for Review filed by petitioners Crewtech Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC United Arab Emirates seeks to annul the March 11, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 07388, affirming the July 16, 2012 Decision 2 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-Cebu City.
Respondent Gerardo C. Tagamolila (Tagamolila) was hired by petitioners on July 8, 2008 up to April 7, 2009 as an Able-Bodied Seaman. 3 As such, he was sometimes required to work at the open deck of the vessel. Thereafter, Tagamolila was again hired by the petitioners on October 28, 2009 for a period of eight months, also as an Able-Bodied Seaman, on board M/V Trans Bay with a salary of US$603.00. 4 Prior to his embarkation, Tagamolila underwent the required pre-employment medical examination where he was declared physically fit to work as he was not suffering from any medical condition. 5
Tagamolila was deployed on December 19, 2009. 6 Although his contract was only up to August 18, 2010, petitioners extended his contract up to October 25, 2010 as shown in his Certificate of Sea Service. 7
Sometime in the second week of September, however, Tagamolila suffered an injury on his right eye while on duty caused by a foreign particle that was blown by the wind. 8 He tried to wash it off but the pain persisted. He reported the matter to the vessel's Second Mate, Ricardo Pizon, but the latter only told him to wait for the time until the vessel is docked at the nearest port. As nothing could be done because there was no medical personnel on board, Tagamolila had no choice but to endure the pain and wait for the vessel to dock. 9
On September 27, 2009, the vessel finally docked at the port of Jubail, UAE and, accompanied by herein petitioners' agent, Tagamolila was finally able to see the company's designated physician 10 who was, however, not an eye specialist. 11 Hence, he merely checked Tagamolila's eye and did not prescribe any medication for it nor treat the injury.
On October 4, 2010, the vessel again docked at the Port of Jubail. This time, Tagamolila was finally able to consult an eye specialist who found that his right eye was already suffering from infection which requires medication and follow-up check-up. 12 Tagamolila informed the ship's Master, Michael Santiago, about the doctor's findings and the need for a follow-up but the latter only told him to just wait for his repatriation on October 25, 2010 or the termination of his extended contract. 13
When Tagamolila arrived in Manila on October 27, 2010, he immediately went to the petitioners' office to ask for medical assistance. However, he was informed that the company could not give him assistance as they did not receive any accident report from the Ship's Master. 14
On November 2, 2010, Tagamolila returned to his hometown in Iloilo City and went to see Dr. Jeremy Saquian (Dr. Saquian), an eye specialist. It was found that he already needed a corneal transplant. He was given medication to relieve his eye from pain and to reduce its redness. 15
On April 4, 2011, Tagamolila was again examined by Dr. Saquian who later certified that he was already considered legally blind on his right eye. 16
Tagamolila sought a second opinion on August 16, 2011 from an eye specialist in Quezon City. 17 The latter had similar findings with Dr. Saquian and declared that Tagamolila was no longer fit to work as an Able Seaman as his right eye was already blind due to corneal infection caused by trauma/foreign body. 18
Hence, Tagamolila filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Labor Arbiter 19 for permanent total disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). He also prayed for moral damages and attorney's fees.
On February 29, 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring that Tagamolila is entitled to permanent total disability benefit and directed the petitioners to pay disability benefits in the amount of US$89,100.00 and sickness allowance for 120 days. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Crewtech Shipmanagement, Inc., is hereby ordered to pay complainant, the following benefits, to wit:
|
1. Sickness Allowance for 120 days |
US$2,412.00 |
|
2. Permanent Total Disability |
89,100.00 |
|
|
––––––––––––– |
|
|
US$91,512.00 |
|
3. 10% Attorney's Fees |
9,151.20 |
|
|
––––––––––––– |
|
Total |
US$100,663.20 |
The claim for moral damages is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 20
Unsatisfied with the Labor Arbiter's decision, petitioners elevated the case to the NLRC claiming that Tagamolila was not entitled to disability benefits as there was no existing report in the vessel's logbook that he figured in an accident while on board the vessel which may have caused his blindness in the right eye. 21 They also contended that if, indeed, Tagamolila were entitled to disability benefits, the same should only be partial permanent disability equivalent to Disability Grade 7, and not to 100% compensation as found by the Labor Arbiter. 22 They also argued that Tagamolila was not entitled to reimbursement of attorney's fees. 23
On July 16, 2012, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision saying that Tagamolila is no longer able to work as a seaman or to obtain any gainful employment hence, entitled to permanent total disability benefits. It also did not give credence to the petitioners' claim that there was no report that Tagamolila's injury was contracted while he was on board the vessel as it pointed out that the latter even went to the company-designated physician at the Port of Jubail, UAE for two consecutive times. The NLRC also noted that from the pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, it was clear that petitioners failed to promptly attend to Tagamolila's complaint about the pain in his right eye which clearly aggravated the situation to the point that his right eye became completely and irreversibly blind. 24 The NLRC disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
When petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC, the petitioners elevated the case to the CA. However, in a Decision dated March 11, 2014, the CA also found for Tagamolila and thus, affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The CA decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed July 16, 2012 Decision of the public respondent and its September 24, 2012 Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs on petitioners.
SO ORDERED. 26
Hence, this petition assailing the CA's Decision was filed by petitioners who insist that Tagamolila is not entitled to permanent and total compensation.
The CA did not err when it affirmed the Decision of the NLRC.
Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. 27 ruled that a disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days.
Here, Tagamolila's injury was not only work-related, considering that he was at times assigned to work at the open deck of the vessel and that the incident happened while he was on duty, the same also lasted for more than 120 days. Likewise, since then, respondent has been unable to engage in any gainful employment.
Jurisprudence has it that total disability means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work that he/she was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his/her mentality and attainments could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. 28 It is not the injury which is compensated, but rather, the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. 29
Further, it is clear from the records that it was the petitioners' inaction to give Tagamolila the proper medical attention which aggravated the injury in his right eye. This alone is in violation of the provisions of the CBA between the petitioner and the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), which says that "a seafarer shall be entitled to immediate medical attention when required." 30
Undeniably, the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it awarded permanent and total disability benefits to Tagamolila.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated March 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 07388 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 674-681; penned by then Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
2.Id. at 686-697; signed by Commissioner Julie C. Rendoque and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Bantug.
3.Id. at 699.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 693.
6.Id. at 700.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 694.
11.Id. at 700.
12.Id. at 701.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 702.
18.Id.
19. The case was handled by Labor Arbiter Rodrigo P. Camacho.
20.Rollo, Vol. II, p. 710.
21.Id. at 691.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 694.
25.Id. at 696-697.
26.Id. at 681.
27. 624 Phil. 523 (2010).
28.Belchem Philippines, Inc./United Philippine Lines, et al. v. Zafra, Jr., 759 Phil. 514, 525 (2015), citing Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation, et al., 675 Phil. 713, 726 (2011); Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc./Gutay and/or Atle Jebsens Management A/S, 624 Phil. 523, 531 (2010), further citing Section 2, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code.
29.Id.
30.Rollo, Vol. II, p. 694.