Layug v. National Labor Relations Commission, 1st Division

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229260. September 30, 2020.]

ANTHONY T. LAYUG, petitioner,vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 1ST DIVISION, AND/OR PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., AND/OR CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC., AND/OR MS. ARLENE P. SIMBRE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 30, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 229260 (Anthony T. Layug versus National Labor Relations Commission, 1st Division, and/or Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., and/or Celebrity Cruises, Inc., and/or Ms. Arlene P. Simbre). — The Court resolves to NOTE the Notice of Change of Address dated October 4, 2019, filed by Atty. Emmanuel E. Sandicho, counsel for petitioner, to 2nd Floor, HK Bldg., Manila South Road, National Highway, Halang, Calamba City, 4027 Laguna, and GRANT his request that he be furnished with copies of all notices, orders, resolutions, pleadings, motions and other papers issued and filed in this case at said address.

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated August 30, 2016 and the Resolution 3 dated December 9, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138480, awarding to Anthony T. Layug (Layug) benefits equivalent to Disability Grade 8 under Section 32 of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

On June 20, 2013, Layug filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC), its Manager Arlene Simbre, and its foreign principal, Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (collectively, respondents). 4 In his Position Paper, 5 he alleged that respondents hired him on March 14, 2012 as a 2nd Cook Pastry for a period of eight months on board the vessel Celebrity Eclipse. 6 He underwent pre-employment medical examination and was certified fit for sea duty. He embarked on the vessel on March 22, 2012. However, during the second week of August 2012, while he was lifting an incredibly large and very heavy mixer-bowl, something suddenly and unexpectedly broke and cracked on his back, prompting him to report to the medical doctor on the vessel. He was given pain relievers and was advised to be treated in a hospital upon arrival at the port of call. After two weeks of taking pain medication or on September 1, 2012, the vessel arrived at Bristol, United Kingdom. Layug went to the Onshore Marine Medical Services, St. Andrews Medical Center. He was seen by Dr. Peter Clark and was referred to Dr. M.I. McLaren, an Orthopedic Surgeon. He underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the Lumbosacral Spine. The results showed that he had a Disc Prolapse at Level L4/L5. He was repatriated on September 7, 2012. 7

Upon arrival in the Philippines, Layug reported to PTC's office and was referred to the company-designated physician at Shiphealth, Inc. for further evaluation and treatment. In turn, he was referred to an Orthopedic Surgeon at the Manila Doctor's Hospital. The Initial Medical Report 8 dated September 14, 2012 stated that Layug has L4-L5 Disc Herniation and Gall Bladder Obstruction. He was recommended to undergo surgery for both. In the interim, from September 2012 to January 2013, he had physical therapy sessions for his persistent low back pains. 9 In January 2013, he underwent Laminotomy/Discectomy of his Lumbosacral Spine. 15 days after, he had an infection on the operative site, hence another surgery was performed on him to debride the infection. Antibiotic beads were placed on his spine, which were removed in March 2013. Thereafter, Layug continued with his physical therapy sessions. However, he still experienced recurrent pains on his spine until June 2013 or more than 10 or 11 months since his accident on board the vessel. He claimed that respondents showed no intention of paying his disability benefits. 10

On June 29, 2013, Layug consulted an independent physician, Dr. Nicanor Escutin (Dr. Escutin), who issued a Disability Report 11 declaring him "unfit to be a seaman in whatever capacity," to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

PERTINENT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

GENERAL SURVEY: Conscious, coherent, ambulatory

LOW BACK EXAMINATION:

• Incisional scar on his low back

• Numbness on his lower extremities

• Pain on bending/twisting, Pain on prolong standing

• Pain and difficulty of going up/Pain on prolong walking

• Pain on squatting

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:

• HERNIATED NUCLEOUS PULPOSUS, L4/L5

• STATUS POST LAMINOTOMY/DISCECTOMY, L4/L5

• NERVE RADICULOPATHY, L4/L5

DISABILITY EVALUATION:

xxx xxx xxx

After 3 months, he again underwent operation to remove the antibiotic beads. He continued his physical therapy; however, his condition did not improve. He has on and off back pain, with difficulty lifting weights. He cannot stand for a long time and (sic) difficulty of climbing the stairs.

He is not physical[ly] healthy to perform his job as a baker seaman since his problem on his back restrict[s] his movements.

He is UNFIT TO BE SEAMAN in whatever capacity.

He is given a PERMANENT DISABILITY. 12

Layug subsequently argued that he is entitled to total permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$85,000.00 pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 13 between Celebrity Cruises, Inc. and Federazione Italiana Transporti-CSL-ITF-Foreign Flag Department, Italy, which covers the vessel where he was employed. Article 15 (A) of said CBA reads:

Article 15 — Compensation for Disability.

A) If the Seafarer meets with an accident while working on board or while traveling to or from the vessel on company business at Company expense, and as a result, the Seafarer's ability to work is reduced, the Company shall pay the Seafarer disability compensation at a percentage depending on the degree of disability of up to USD eighty-five thousand ($85,000) FOR Marine Officers and USD sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000) for all other Seafarers. The degree of disability shall be determined by competent doctor or medical institution agreed upon by the Union and the Company. x x x 14

xxx xxx xxx

Layug claimed that he is a Marine Officer within the purview of the above-cited provision and that the breaking or slip of his Lumbosacral Spine was due to an accident, which is unforeseen, unintended, and unexpected. The accident was sustained in the course of his employment and in the performance of his duty. 15 Layug prayed for P500,000.00 moral damages, P500,000.00 exemplary damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. 16

In their Position Paper, 17 respondents countered that Layug is not entitled to total disability benefits. The company-designated physician assessed Layug's disability with Grade 8 rating. 18 This evaluation should prevail because the company doctor had, among others, acquired familiarity and detailed knowledge of Layug's medical condition right after his medical repatriation. The company doctor oversaw Layug's progress and treatments. 19 Respondents further alleged that they are not liable to pay damages and attorney's fees because they fully complied with their obligations under the POEA-SEC. They paid Layug's sickness allowance and costs of treatment. No bad faith or malice could be imputed to them. 20

Layug filed a Reply 21 reiterating the arguments in his Position Paper. While, respondents hastened to add in their Reply 22 that the 120/240-day rule had been rendered obsolete by the provisions of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which provides that the disability of the seafarer shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32, and shall not be measured by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid. Even assuming that the 240-day rule is applicable, the company doctor gave his assessment of Grade 8 disability rating on January 31, 2013 or less than 240 days since Layug was first seen on September 8, 2012. 23 Respondents furthermore alleged that the CBA does not apply because Layug presented an unsigned CBA. Layug's injury was also not sustained through an accident since he was performing his usual duties when his back problem started. In addition, he cannot be considered as a Marine Officer under Article 15 (A). He was a 2nd Cook Pastry, hence a member of the Hotel Staff of the vessel. 24

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

In his Decision 25 dated December 27, 2013, the Labor Arbiter (LA) awarded Layug full disability benefits under the POEA-SEC in the amount of US$60,000.00. The claims for moral and exemplary damages and all other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. 26

The LA held that Layug's sickness lasted for more than 240 days from the date that he was initially seen by the company physician on September 8, 2012. Hence, the Grade 8 disability rating was without factual and legal basis. However, Layug's illness was not a result of an "accident" contemplated in the CBA because it was a direct result of the performance of his official duty. 27

Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that: (1) the opinion of Dr. Escutin is not credible because he only saw Layug once; (2) no third doctor was appointed by the parties, so the opinion of the company-doctor is conclusive; 28 and (3) the complaint was premature because Layug filed it on June 20, 2013 or nine days before he consulted Dr. Escutin on June 29, 2013. 29

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

In its Decision 30 dated July 30, 2014, the NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA with modification. It declared that Layug is suffering from Grade 6 disability, hence entitled to US$25,000.00 plus 10% attorney's fees. 31

The NLRC ruled that respondents do not deny that Layug contracted his illness while on board the vessel. The only question is the disability rating of his illness. The company-designated physician and Dr. Escutin gave contrasting medical opinions, hence the parties should have secured the opinion of a third doctor. In the absence of the latter, the case shall be resolved based on the evidence on record. 32 The NLRC found that the company-designated physician had expectedly downplayed his medical rating. It held that the nearest injury that could be associated with Layug's case is Grade 6 disability, referring to "fracture of the dorsal or lumbar spines resulting to severe or total rigidity of the trunk or total loss of lifting power of heavy objects." It noted that both the company doctor and the independent physician observed that Layug had recurring on and off back pain and had lost his capacity for lifting heavy objects. Layug's Grade 6 disability rating shall be computed at US$50,000.00 multiplied to 50.00% which is equivalent to US$25,000.00. 33

The NLRC awarded 10% attorney's fees, since there is no need to prove that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when indemnity is withheld to the employee under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. 34

Layug filed a motion for partial reconsideration, 35 arguing that he is entitled to US$85,000.00 disability benefits under the CBA or in the alternative US$60,000.00 under the POEA-SEC plus 10% attorney's fees. 36 Respondents also moved for reconsideration. The NLRC denied both motions for lack of merit in its Resolution dated September 30, 2014. 37

Layug filed a petition for certiorari in the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision 38 dated August 30, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition and declared that Layug is entitled to Grade 8 disability benefit. It ordered respondents to jointly and severally pay US$16,795.00 plus attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award. 39 The CA held that:

First, Layug is not entitled to disability benefits under the CBA because his injury cannot be considered an accident. Although Layug may not have expected the injury, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can cause back injury. Thus, the injury cannot be viewed as unusual under the circumstances. 40

Second, for work-related illness under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the declaration of disability is no longer based on the number of days that the seafarer was treated or paid his sickness allowance; but rather on the disability grading he/she received from the company-designated physician, independent physician, or third doctor. Here, despite the contrasting medical opinions of the company doctor and the independent physician, no resort to a third doctor was made. 41

Third, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Layug is entitled to Grade 6 disability rating instead of Grade 8 given by the company-designated physician. Citing case law, the CA explained that the disability rating given by the company doctor deserves greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of another doctor who appeared to have examined the seafarer only once. Also, the prognosis of both doctors is more congruent to a Grade 8 disability rating. More importantly, Layug consulted Dr. Escutin on June 29, 2013 or after he had already filed his complaint on June 20, 2013. Despite the prognosis of Dr. Escutin, Layug still returned to the company-designated physician on July 4, 2013 for his diagnostic test, and was evaluated on July 5, 2013 where it was stated that he had reached maximal medical improvement for his spine condition. 42

Fourth, Layug is entitled to 10% attorney's fees because he was forced to litigate and incurred expenses to protect his right. 43

Layug filed a motion for reconsideration (MR), 44 alleging that under Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 45 when an injury with disability grading from 2 to 14 incapacitates a seafarer from performing his/her usual duties for a period of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for medical treatment, he/she is, under legal contemplation, totally and permanently disabled. 46

In its Resolution 47 dated December 9, 2016, the CA denied the motion. It held that the cases cited by Layug involved employment contracts entered into before the 2010 POEA-SEC. Layug's contract is governed by the 2010 POEA-SEC, which veered away from the 120/240-day rule.

In his Petition before Us, Layug alleged that he is entitled to total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00 under the POEA-SEC. He again invoked the ruling in Kestrel stated in his MR before the CA. 48 He maintained that he permanently stopped working due to his back injury and despite the Grade 8 disability rating given by the company-designated physician, he was unable to engage in gainful employment for more than 240 days. In addition, Dr. Escutin, an Orthopedic Specialist, declared him totally and permanently disabled. 49

In their Comment, 50 respondents raised the following: (1) the 120/240-day rule was rendered obsolete by the 2010 POEA-SEC, which governs Layug's contract of employment; 51 (2) the 120 day rule is inapplicable because it was extended to 240 days by jurisprudence; (3) even assuming that the 240-day rule applies, the company-designated physician issued the Grade 8 disability rating on January 31, 2013 or less than 240 days since Layug was referred to the doctor on September 8, 2012; 52 (4) since the opinion of a third doctor was not secured, the findings of the company-designated physician should prevail. Dr. Escutin only saw Layug once, hence his medical opinion is not credible; 53 (5) the complaint of Layug was premature because he filed it before he consulted with Dr. Escutin; 54 and (6) the CBA is inapplicable because Layug's injury was not a result of an accident. Not to mention, Layug is not a marine officer but a member of the hotel staff of the vessel. 55

Layug filed a Reply, 56 reiterating that Kestrel applies in this case.

Issue

The sole issue is whether Layug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits under the 2010 POEA-SEC.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

The entitlement of a seafarer to disability benefits is governed by law, by the parties' contract, and by medical findings. 57 By law, the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation (AREC) provide that a seafarer is declared to be on temporary total disability during the 120-day period within which he/she is unable to work. However, a temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days is considered as a total and permanent disability, except when the sickness still requires medical attendance beyond the 120 days but not to exceed 240 days, in which case the temporary total disability period is extended to a maximum of 240 days. This extended period is not automatic. The company-designated physician must perform some significant act to justify the extension. Without this, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total. 58 By contract, the material contract is the POEA-SEC, which in this case refers to the 2010 version since Layug's employment contract was signed on March 14, 2012, the parties' CBA, and the employment agreement between Layug and respondents. By medical findings, this refers to the assessment of the company-designated physician, the seafarer's personal physician, and the mutually-agreed third physician, if any. 59

Case law teaches that the following guidelines are to be observed when a seafarer claims permanent and total disability benefits:

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;

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. 60

In this case, the company-designated physician issued a Disability Grade 8 assessment on January 31, 2013 or 145 days from the time that Layug was referred to her for medical evaluation and treatment on September 8, 2012. This is clearly beyond the 120-day period. Nevertheless, in Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, 61 We deemed the temporary total disability period extended up to a maximum of 240 days because the surgical procedure performed on the seafarer 159 days from his repatriation shows that his condition required further medical treatment. Similarly, based on the records, Layug has two separate medical conditions that need surgical intervention. The treatment plan was to first proceed with the laparoscopic abdominal surgery to manage his gallbladder polyp and then once he recuperated, to proceed with his spinal surgery. Layug underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy on December 20, 2012 then underwent laminotomy and discectomy of his L4-L5 spine on March 4, 2013, which is 178 days from his repatriation. 62 Accordingly, the period of diagnosis and treatment in the case of Layug was extended to 240 days.

Nevertheless, We find that the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definite assessment on Layug's medical condition within 240 days or until May 6, 2013, making his disability total and permanent. The CA mistakenly relied on the Grade 8 disability rating issued on January 31, 2013 because that assessment is not yet final and definitive. First, the medical report itself stated that the Grade 8 disability rating is "interim," to wit:

It has been 146 days since patient disembarked. Interim disability trading at this time based on the Amended POEA Contract, Section 32 (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered Diseases Including Occupational Disease or Illness Contracted), CHEST-TRUNK-SPINE, is moderate rigidity of two thirds (2/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk, which is Grade 8 disability.

Working Diagnosis:

• s/p 6 sessions of physical therapy (1st set) for L4-L5 Disc Herniation

• s/p laparoscopic cholecystectomy (December 20, 2012-Manila) for calculous cholecystitis

Recommendations:

• For Laminotomy and Discectomy, L4-L5 (FOR APPROVAL)

• For follow-up with General Surgery on February 4, 201363 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)

Second, Layug underwent further medical treatments after the issuance of the disability grading. He underwent spinal surgery on March 2013, debridement and application of antibiotic beads on the operative site on April 1, 2013, and removal of said antibiotic beads on April 15, 2013. On May 16, 2013, Layug went to the company-designated physician for follow-up where it was recommended that he undergo physical therapy to help in his post-operative recovery. On June 19, 2013, he made a follow-up after he completed seven sessions of physical therapy. Upon re-evaluation, it was noted that he still has the same level of back pain. On June 27, 2013, a post-rehabilitation evaluation was done on Layug, where he reported absence of paresthesia or numbness on his leg but he recounted intermitted back pain. On July 4, 2013, diagnostic tests were done on Layug. Lastly, on July 5, 2013, the company-designated physician issued a "Final Medical Summary Report" 64 stating that "no other form of treatment was indicated for the patient for rehabilitation. Mr. Layug was assessed to have reached maximal medical improvement for the spine condition." 65 The final medical report did not contain any assessment or final disability grading. Thus, Layug is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

Respondents argued that Section 20 (A) (6) 66 of the 2010 POEA-SEC had rendered obsolete the 120/240-day rule, such that the disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32, regardless of the actual number of days that the seafarer underwent treatment. We are not persuaded.

In Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. v. Villaflor, 67 We explained that before the disability gradings under Section 32 are considered, the disability ratings should be properly established and contained in a valid and timely medical report of a company-designated physician or a third doctor agreed upon by the parties. Thus, the periods prescribed by the rules should still be complied with. The foremost consideration of the courts is to determine whether the medical assessment or report of the company-designated physician was complete and appropriately issued; otherwise, the medical report shall be set aside and the disability grading contained therein cannot be seriously appreciated. Here, the company-designated physician only issued an interim disability grading, which We cannot consider as definite, final, and complete. Hence, We cannot give credence to said disability assessment.

Consequently, without a final and definite disability grading issued before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day period, Layug cannot be faulted for not complying with the third-doctor referral provision of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Although Layug consulted his own physician, Dr. Escutin, the lack of a final assessment from the company-designated physician meant that there is nothing for him to properly contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as permanent and total. 68

We also rule that Layug did not prematurely file his complaint on June 20, 2013 for 280 days had already lapsed counted from the time that he was seen by the company-designated physician on September 8, 2012 yet no final assessment was issued for his medical condition. The lapse of the 240-day period without any certification issued by the company-designated physician gave rise to a cause of action for total and permanent disability benefits. 69

Meanwhile, We affirm the CA's award of 10% attorney's fees to Layug pursuant to Article 2208 70 of the New Civil Code because he was clearly compelled to litigate to satisfy his claim for disability benefits. 71

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2016 and the Resolution dated December 9, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138480 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated December 27, 2013 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. OFW (M)06-08966-13, granting petitioner Anthony T. Layug total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED, with the MODIFICATION that he is also granted attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 49-78.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Henri Jean Paul Inting (now a Member of this Court); id. at 14-29.

3.Id. at 11-12.

4.Id. at 15, 128.

5.Id. at 129-148.

6.Id. at 151.

7.Id. at 15-16.

8.Id. at 195-196.

9.Id. at 197.

10.Id. at 16.

11.Id. at 156-157.

12.Id. at 156-157.

13.Id. at 158-173.

14.Id. at 165.

15.Id. at 138-139.

16.Id. at 147-148.

17.Id. at 174-189.

18.Id. at 177.

19.Id. at 185-186.

20.Id. at 186.

21.Id. at 201-209.

22.Id. at 211-220.

23.Id. at 213-214.

24.Id. at 215-218.

25. Penned by Labor Arbiter J. Potenciano F. Napenas, Jr.; id. at 104-110.

26.Id. at 110.

27.Id. at 109-110.

28.Id. at 228-233.

29.Id. at 233-236.

30. Penned by Commissioner Romel L. Go, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco; id. at 112-124.

31.Id. at 123.

32.Id. at 118-120.

33.Id. at 120-123.

34.Id. at 123.

35.Id. at 273-280.

36.Id. at 274.

37.Id. at 21.

38.Supra note 2.

39.Rollo, p. 28.

40.Id. at 24.

41.Id. at 26.

42.Id. at 26-28.

43.Id. at 28.

44.Id. at 30-46.

45. 702 Phil. 717 (2013).

46.Rollo, pp. 36-37.

47.Id. at 11-12.

48.Id. at 62, 66.

49.Id. at 75-77.

50.Id. at 289-313.

51.Id. at 289.

52.Id. at 295.

53.Id. at 296.

54.Id. at 304-306.

55.Id. at 306-308.

56.Id. at 325-331.

57.Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018.

58.Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp., 817 Phil. 598, 611-612 (2017).

59.Cutanda v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., 817 Phil. 1106, 1118 (2017), citing Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, 743 Phil. 371 (2014).

60.Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018, citing Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp., 817 Phil. 1106 (2017).

61. G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018.

62. See July 5, 2013 Medical Report of the company-designated physician, rollo, pp. 198-200.

63.Id. at 197.

64.Id. at 198-200.

65.Id. at 200.

66. 6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness[,] the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.

The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32 of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid. (Emphasis supplied)

67. G.R. No. 225425, January 29, 2020, citing Olidana v. Jabsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234, 245 (2015).

68.Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018, citing Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717 (2013).

69.Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 765 Phil. 341 (2015), citing C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, 691 Phil. 521 (2012).

70. Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

xxx xxx xxx

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws.

71.Supra note 57.