THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220414. September 6, 2017.]
CSC MANILA, INC., MIDON MARITIME CO., INC., ERIC M. SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. RODOLFO B. AGUILAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 6, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220414 (CSC Manila, Inc., Midon Maritime Co., Inc., Eric M. Sanchez vs. Rodolfo B. Aguilan). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the July 15, 2014 Decision 1 and the September 3, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 124223. The challenged rulings reversed the November 28, 2011 Decision and January 31, 2012 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), thereby granting respondent seafarer's claim for permanent and total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees.
The Facts
On August 12, 2009, respondent Rodolfo B. Aguilan (Aguilan) entered into a contract of employment 3 with petitioner CSC Manila, Inc., for and on behalf of petitioner Midon Maritime Co., Inc., to work as a Bosun 4 for a period of nine (9) months on board M/V Sir Henry. After being certified as fit for sea duty by the company-designated physician, Aguilan boarded the vessel on September 15, 2009. 5 This was his tenth (10th) employment contract with petitioner CSC Manila, Inc.
On January 30, 2010, at Chengxi Shipyard in Jianyin, China, Aguilan met an accident while he was at the port side pop deck of the vessel and removing the rust of the air pipe vent head of the freshwater tank. According to Aguilan, the head of the iron chisel he was using broke and hit his eye causing it to bleed. He was then brought to the ship's clinic and was given an ointment for his injured eye. 6
On February 1, 2010, Aguilan was confined in a hospital in China and had to undergo an eye surgery due to a minute piece of metal which was found in his right eye. He was discharged from the hospital on February 5, 2010, and was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines where he had continuous check-up and medication under the care of the company-designated physician. 7
On March 8, 2010, the company-designated physician declared Aguilan as fit to work. Despite informing the doctor of the presence of a "black thing" surrounding his right eye's vision, Aguilan was advised to go to petitioners' office where he was told that he can return to work on board the same vessel. Aguilan then underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was certified fit for sea duty although he had difficulty reading even with eyeglasses. 8 Taking into account the needs of his family, Aguilan did not resist the job offer and signed another 9-month contract 9 with petitioners. He was deployed on board M/V Sir Henry on March 21, 2010.
On April 8, 2010, or eighteen (18) days after his deployment, while on duty, Aguilan experienced blurred vision in his right eye, nausea, fever and headache. He was brought to Central Hospital in Fukuyama City, Japan, where we has confined after being diagnosed of "retinal detachment, right eye ball infection, vitreous hemorrhage and opacity secondary to uveitis." 10 Aguilan underwent another operation and, on May 1, 2010, was again repatriated due to medical reasons.
Upon his arrival in Manila, Aguilan was referred to the company-designated physician where he was eventually diagnosed to have Chronic Uveitis, Steroid-induced Glaucoma, right-eye. 11 The company-designated physician forthrightly told Aguilan that he cannot go back to work as a seaman anymore. 12
However, according to petitioners, Aguilan was co-managed by a team of specialists and the combined treatment resulted in the complete asymptomatic resolution of his medical condition. As such, Aguilan was declared fit to work on September 14, 2010. 13
For his part, Aguilan alleged that he was not restored to his pre-injury health status which prompted him to consult independent physicians. On September 20, 2010, Aguilan consulted Dr. Efren C. Laxamana, who diagnosed him as having Chronic Uveitis and Secondary Glaucoma 14 and advised him to seek other employment opportunities aside from his current work as a seaman. Thereafter, Aguilan consulted another physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, who diagnosed him with Chronic Uveitis, right, Secondary Glaucoma, right, and Hypertension. 15 He was declared as unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity and that his illness is work-related. 16 Hence, Aguilan filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA), claiming for permanent and total disability benefits.
Since the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement during the mandatory conference, they were directed to submit their respective position papers.
Ruling of the LA
On June 30, 2011, the LA rendered a Decision 17 granting Aguilan's claim for sickness wages but denying the other claims, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents CSC Manila, Inc. and Midon Maritime Co., Inc. are hereby ordered to pay complainant Rodolfo B. Aguilan his sickness wages in the amount of USD2,400.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the time of the payment.
All other claims are denied.
SO ORDERED. 18
In so ruling, the LA was convinced that Aguilan's illnesses are not work-related on account of the fit to work certification issued by the company-designated physician. 19 The LA reasoned that while it may be true that Aguilan had a previous eye injury which caused his repatriation, he had been declared fit to work after such injury and was even deployed by petitioners for another employment contract. 20
Aggrieved, Aguilan filed an appeal before the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
On November 28, 2011, the NLRC rendered a Decision 21 upholding that of the LA, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.22
The NLRC ruled that Aguilan's condition is not caused by the injury he sustained while on board and performing his duties, but by the treatment to such injury afterwards. Thus, it held that Aguilan's illnesses cannot be considered as work-related. 23
Aguilan's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its January 31, 2012 Resolution. 24 Hence, he elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari.
Ruling of the CA
In its July 15, 2014 Decision, the CA resolved to grant Aguilan's petition. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed November 28, 2011 Decision and January 31, 2012 Resolution of the NLRC are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, Private Respondents are ordered to pay Petitioner the following amounts: 1) US$60,000.00 representing permanent and total disability benefits; 2) US$2,400 as sickness allowances; and 3) Ten Percent (10%) of the total monetary award as [and for] attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.25
In reversing the decision of the NLRC, the CA held that Aguilan's work-sustained eye injury was the proximate cause that gave rise to his Chronic Uveitis and Secondary Glaucoma. 26 According the CA, there is no doubt that the trauma to Aguilan's right eye while on duty had a direct bearing on his illnesses, and hence, compensable.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its September 3, 2015 Resolution for lack of merit.
Thus, petitioners filed the instant petition.
The Issues
Petitioners anchor their plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the following grounds:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S ILLNESSES ARE WORK-RELATED
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT DISMISS THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO INITIATE THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE POEA-SEC
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT REFER TO THE DISABILITY GRADING SCHEDULE UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE POEA-SEC 27
Succinctly put, the principal issue to be resolved is whether or not respondent Aguilan is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
Petitioners postulate that the incident during Aguilan's first deployment and the cause of his disembarkation from his second deployment are not connected since his first repatriation was due to an injury on his right eye which had been treated, leading to the issuance of a fit to work certification in his favor. In contrast, Aguilan's repatriation from his second deployment was due to Uveitis, which is purportedly an auto-immune condition and probably genetic in character, hence, not work-related.
Aguilan, on the other hand, claims that his present eye problem began when he suffered an accident while he was performing his duties on board petitioners' vessel. Thus, the cause of his Chronic Uveitis and Secondary Glaucoma is work-related, entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits. 28
The Court's Ruling
We resolve to deny the petition.
Aguilan's illnesses are work-related
Petitioners maintain that Aguilan's illnesses are not work-related since Chronic Uveitis is purportedly caused by his genetic structure, while his Glaucoma is caused by steroid injections. They argue that there is no substantial evidence to support Aguilan's claim that his illnesses are work-related. 29
We are not persuaded.
Contrary to petitioners' claims, it is undisputed that Aguilan's eye problem commenced when he met an accident while performing his duties during his first deployment to M/V Sir Henry. His unfortunate condition began when a piece broke off from the equipment that he was using, hit his right eye, and caused it to bleed. He then had to undergo surgery where a minute piece of metal was found in his injured eye, leading to his repatriation for further treatment. Records show that part of such treatment is the administration of steroids, both intra-ocular and oral. 30 Thus, Aguilan would not have undergone steroid treatment if not for the injury he sustained while in the performance of his duties as a seafarer.
Furthermore, it must be noted that despite informing the company-designated physician of the presence of a "black thing" surrounding his right eye's vision, Aguilan was still declared as fit to work and was deployed by petitioners under another employment contract. However, merely eighteen (18) days after his deployment, Aguilan had to be brought to a hospital in Japan due to the blurred vision of his right eye, coupled with nausea, fever and headache. There, Aguilan had to go through another operation and was again repatriated due to medical reasons. The Japanese Opthalmologist's medical report brings light as to the cause of Aguilan's second repatriation:
#Day2 post operation 4.16 I started steroid injection treatment (steroid mini pulse injection) by a diagnosis with the uveitis occurring after old injury.
xxx xxx xxx
By CT [scanning] there is no [foreign] body in choroidal membrane or retina (0.55mm slice) but we think there might be residual [foreign] body in the eye at the level of choroidal [membrane] so please care of [recurrence] of inflammation and in that case you might do steroidal injection. 31
The foregoing report reveals that the doctor who operated on Aguilan diagnosed his eye condition as Uveitis, which occurred after his old injury, and opined that there was a residual foreign body in Aguilan's right eye. Therefore, not all foreign bodies were removed from Aguilan's right eye despite his operation in China and subsequent treatments during his first repatriation.
Indubitably, the causal connection between Aguilan's illnesses and the traumatic incident he encountered on board M/V Sir Henry is too clear to be ignored. Aguilan has been repeatedly hired by petitioner CSC Manila, Inc. for its principal's vessels since May 2000. 32 In his ten (10) years of employment, there was no showing that Aguilan was afflicted with either Uveitis or Glaucoma as he passed all the required pre-medical examinations and ended all his prior contracts without any medical issue. Indeed, if not for the injury he sustained while on board M/V Sir Henry, Aguilan will not now suffer from Chronic Uveitis and Secondary Glaucoma. It is thus absurd and ominous for petitioners to claim that the causes of Aguilan's first and second repatriation are not connected, or worse, not work-related. Based on the evidence presented, the CA is correct in ruling that Aguilan's illnesses are work-related, hence, compensable.
On the appointment of a third doctor
Petitioners argue that Aguilan's complaint should have been dismissed since there was no attempt on his part to initiate the appointment of a third doctor to resolve the inconsistency between the findings of the company-designated physician and his personal doctors. 33
We reject this belated claim as petitioners raised this only for the first time on appeal, particularly, in their Motion for Reconsideration 34 of the CA's Decision. In the proceedings before the LA and the NLRC, petitioners' arguments zeroed in on the alleged non-compensability of Aguilan's illnesses as they are not work-related. It is well-settled that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower tribunals are not permitted. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process. 35
At any rate, it is inaccurate for petitioners to claim that Aguilan failed to initiate a referral to a third doctor. In fact, during the proceedings before the LA, Aguilan expressed his willingness to appoint a third doctor in accordance with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
In Aguilan's Reply to the petitioners' Position Paper, he manifested his willingness to submit himself for examination by a third doctor, to wit:
Notwithstanding the above justifications which clearly entitle complainant to his claim for disability benefits, complainant is willing to submit himself to re-examination by a third doctor whose findings/assessment is final and binding upon the parties herein in accordance with the POEA contract. 36
Aguilan reiterated the same in his Rejoinder, thus:
At this juncture complainant reiterates that he is willing to submit himself to reexamination by a third doctor, preferably a government doctor whose findings/assessment is final and binding upon the parties pursuant to the contract. 37
However, petitioners did not make any comment or counter-manifestation thereto. Neither did the LA act thereon. Clearly therefore, respondent requested from petitioners that he be referred to a third doctor for a final medical evaluation, only for his plea to fall on deaf ears.
Aguilan's disability is total and
Petitioners maintain that the CA erred when it ruled that Aguilan is entitled to full disability benefits in disregard of the Schedule of Disability under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. According to them, even assuming that Aguilan is entitled to disability compensation, it should only be fifty percent (50%) for loss of vision in one eye. 38
We do not agree.
In determining the disability compensation due to a seafarer, the Court does not only consider the physical injury sustained, but the effect of such injury to the seafarer's capacity to perform the usual tasks that he was trained for or accustomed to perform. In Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Jaycee Dee and NLRC, the Court held:
It is in accord with judicious reasoning for the NLRC to cite the rule that a claimant's disability should not be understood solely on its medical significance, but also on the real and actual effects of the injury to the claimant's right and opportunity to perform work and earn a living. 39 (emphasis supplied)
Jurisprudence has repeatedly held that disability is intimately related to one's earning capacity. It is the inabilityto substantially do all material acts necessary to the pursuit of an occupation he was trained for without any pain, discomfort, or danger to life. A total disability does not require that the seafarer be completely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury incapacitates an employee from pursuing and earning his or her usual work. 40
In Remigio v. NLRC, 41 the Court elucidated the concept of permanent total disability, in this wise:
Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be suffering from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work by the company-accredited physician. The Court affirmed the award of disability benefits to the seaman, citing ECC v. Sanico, GSIS v. CA, and Bejerano v. ECC that 'disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.' It likewise cited Bejerano v. ECC, that in a disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. 42 (emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, it bears stressing that Aguilan continues to suffer from his illnesses which have caused him to lose the vision of his right eye. 43 It is now impossible for him to perform his usual tasks as Bosun in any ocean-going vessel, resulting in his unemployment until this very day. As such, it would be absurd to grant only 50% compensation for the injury he sustained when the said injury has rendered him totally and permanently disabled. Clearly then, the CA was correct in ruling that Aguilan is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
In Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete, 44 We granted total and permanent disability benefits to respondent therein who was not able to resume his job as a seafarer after losing vision in his left eye, viz.:
A total disability does not require that the employee be completely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his or her usual work and earn from it. On the other hand, a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. What is crucial is whether the employee who suffers from disability could still perform his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Evidently, respondent was not able to return to his job as a seafarer after his left eye was declared legally blind. Records show that the petitioners did not give him a new overseas assignment after his disability. This only shows that his disability effectively barred his chances to be deployed abroad as an officer of an ocean-going vessel.
Therefore, it is fitting that respondent be entitled to permanent total disability benefits considering that he would not able to resume his position as a maritime officer and the probability that he would be hired by other maritime employers would be close to impossible. Indeed, a sight-impaired maritime applicant cannot stand in the same footing as his healthy co-applicant. 45
All told, Aguilan's Chronic Uveitis and Secondary Glaucoma does not preclude an award for total and permanent disability because, in labor laws, disability need not render the seafarer absolutely helpless or feeble to be compensable. It is enough that it incapacitates him to perform his customary work. 46 The Court has consistently ruled that disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. 47 What is crucial is whether the seafarer who suffers from disability could still perform his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred.
Verily, this Court sees no reason to overturn the findings and decision the CA. Petitioners failed to show that such factual findings were arbitrarily made or that evidence on record was disregarded.
Lastly, considering that Aguilan was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his valid claim, his right to attorney's fees as recognized by the CA is affirmed by this Court. Where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his right and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award. 48
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding no reversible error in the Decision dated July 15, 2014 and the Resolution dated September 3, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124223, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-55. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, Sixth Division.
2.Id. at 56-58.
3.Id. at 32.
4. As a Bosun, respondent was in charge of executing deck department job orders in accordance with the Chief Officer's instructions, as follows: a) Work distribution, supervision, training and evaluation; b) Keeping and utilizing deck stores such as paints, wire ropes, tools and shackles; while regularly reporting the quantities of consumption and remaining to the Chief Officer; c) Cargo hold sweeping and cleaning, disposal of dunnage, and remaining of lashing gears; re-lashing and re-tightening cargo in hold/in deck; securing and checking watertight doors and manholes before departure for sailing; d) Cleaning and maintenance of shell, deck and holds and accommodation including lavatory, bathroom and walkway; e) Handling of mooring ropes and anchors upon ship when leaving/arriving ports; at port taking case of mooring rope tightness and rat guard, etc., Rollo, p. 35.
5.Rollo, p. 35.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 36.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 81.
10.Id. at 36.
11. As stated in the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Roehl C. Salvador, CA Rollo, p. 45.
12.Rollo, p. 37.
13.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
14. As stated in the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Efren C. Laxamana, CA Rollo, pp. 47-48.
15. As stated in the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, CA Rollo, pp. 49-50.
16.Rollo, p. 37.
17. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan, CA Rollo, pp. 135-150.
18. CA Rollo, p. 150.
19.Id. at 149.
20.Id. at 144.
21. Penned by Comm. Gerardo C. Nograles and concurred in by Comm. Perlita B. Velasco, CA Rollo, pp. 207-229.
22. CA Rollo, p. 228.
23.Id. at 225.
24.Id. at 253-254.
25.Rollo, pp. 54-55.
26.Id. at 45.
27.Id. at 8.
28. At p. 8 of Respondent's Comment to the Petition for Review.
29.Rollo, p. 15.
30. CA Rollo, pp. 40-42.
31.Id. at 41.
32. As evidenced by the Certification dated September 8, 2010 from CSC Manila, Inc., CA Rollo, p. 35.
33.Rollo, p. 19.
34. CA Rollo, pp. 366-394.
35.Imani v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 187023, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 357; Topacio v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157644, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 50, 65.
36. At p. 9 of respondent's Reply, CA Rollo, p. 95.
37. At p. 11 of respondent's Rejoinder, CA Rollo, p. 123.
38.Rollo, p. 21.
39. G.R. No. 165156, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 109.
40.Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc./Maersk Services Ltd., et al. v. Mesina, G.R. No. 200837, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 601.
41. 521 Phil. 330 (2006); also cited in Carcedo v. Maine Marine Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015.
42. Id. at 346-347.
43. At p. 13 of respondent's Comment.
44. G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 247.
45. Id. at 257-258.
46. Esguerra v. United Philippines Lines, Inc. G.R. No. 199932, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 687, citing Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee, 548 Phil. 660, 671 (2007).
47. Philippines Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123891, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 47.
48. United Philippine Lines, Inc. v. Sibug, G.R. No. 201072, April 2, 2014; Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta, G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014.