Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Dela Cruz

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 211507. April 21, 2014.]

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, STRADA MARITIME CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. JESSIE A. DELA CRUZ, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 April 2014 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 211507 — Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Strada Maritime Corporation, petitioners v. Jessie A. Dela Cruz, respondent.

The present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails both the Decision 1 and the Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121383 dated 22 July 2013 and 26 February 2014, respectively.

The case stemmed from a Complaint for Disability Benefits, Illness Allowance, Damages and Attorney's Fees filed by herein respondent Jessie A. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) against herein petitioners Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (MMC) 3 and Strada Maritime Corporation (SMC) 4 before the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioners MMC and SMC hired respondent on 3 February 2009 as an Able Seaman on board the M/V Superstar Virgo for a period of ten (10) months with a basic wage of US$226 per month. The written agreement between the parties embodied the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), as well as the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Prior to embarkation, respondent was subjected to physical examination and was declared "fit for sea duty (without restriction)" by the company-designated physician. 5

On board the vessel, respondent sustained a back injury while cleaning a ballast tank that caused him severe pain and difficulty in walking and in lifting objects. When examined in September 2009, respondent was diagnosed with "Left Lateral Disk Bulge L2/3, Spondylosis with Spinal Stenosis at L3-L4, L4-L5 with Spondylolithesis of L5 over S1" and was confined at Sunway Medical Centre Berhad in Malaysia, where he underwent MRI and physiotherapy. Despite medication, however, his condition worsened, thus, he was advised to undergo spinal surgery. On 27 November 2009, he was repatriated to the Philippines. 6

Upon arrival, respondent was admitted at the Manila Doctor's Hospital. After conducting a series of procedures, the company-designated physician declared him unfit due to "Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Secondary to Degenerative Disc Disease L2 L3, L3 L4, L4 L5, L5 S1 with Segmented Instability of L5 S1 due to Spondylolithesis." Respondent then underwent spinal surgery at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital but this did not improve his condition as he continued to suffer pain and difficulty in standing and walking. 7 TcaAID

After seven (7) months of treatment, or on 7 June 2010, the company-designated physician assessed respondent's disability as Grade 8 for moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk. 8

Thereafter, respondent consulted a private orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira (Dr. Magtira), who, on 16 June 2010, made an assessment of partial and permanent disability with Grade 8 (33.59%) Impediment based on POEA-SEC. In other words, respondent was declared permanently unfit in any capacity to resume his sea duties as seaman. His disability was classified as "Moderate Rigidity or Two-Thirds (2/3) Loss of Motion or Lifting Power of the Trunk." 9

By reason thereof, respondent filed the instant Complaint before the Labor Arbiter.

In a Decision dated 25 November 2010, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners to jointly and solidarily pay respondent the total amount of US$90,288.00, or its peso equivalent converted at the time of payment as disability benefits, illness allowance and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter, however, dismissed for lack of merit all the other claims of respondent. 10

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification the ruling of the Labor Arbiter in its Decision dated 6 June 2011. The NLRC deleted the award for sickness allowance in the amount of US$2,080.00 for lack of merit. Thus, the total award was reduced to US$88,000.00. Respondent moved for its reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated 28 July 2011. 11

On further appeal, the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision dated 22 July 2013 affirmed the Decision and Resolution dated 6 June 2011 and 28 July 2011, respectively, of the NLRC. 12 The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in rendering its Decision and Resolution. The Court of Appeals elucidated, thus:

. . . the factual finding of [NLRC] confirming the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter that the injury suffered by [herein respondent] has rendered him permanently unfit to resume his function as a seaman is duly supported by substantial evidence. Medical certificates of the physician who examined and treated [respondent] attest that the latter suffers from Spondylolithesis which rendered him unfit. In this light, We totally disagree with petitioners' contention that the finding of the company-designated physician was disregarded. There is need to emphasize that both the company-designated physician and the seafarer's private doctor have assessed [respondent] with a disability of Grade 8 (33.59%) Impediment based on the POEA Contract — "Moderate rigidity or two thirds (2/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk." In this condition [respondent] is not expected to do the strenuous manual work of an "Able Seaman." In short, he is permanently UNFIT in any capacity to return to sea duty. Moreover, it is conceded that [respondent] suffered this injury while in the actual performance of his duty as "Able Seaman;" hence, his injury is conclusively regarded as work-connected.

By reason of the above, there is justification in [NLRC's] application of Article 24 of the CBA which explicitly provides that regardless of the degree of disability, an injury which results in the loss of profession will entitle the seafarer to an indemnity of US$80,000.00. It is fundamental that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. 13 (Emphasis supplied).

Petitioners' moved for its reconsideration but the same was denied in the assailed Resolution dated 26 February 2014.

Hence, this Petition raising the following issues: (a) whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in awarding full and permanent disability benefits to the respondent under the AMOSUP CBA despite the fact that respondent suffered no accident while on board the vessel; (b) whether the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in awarding full and permanent disability benefits to the respondent despite the fact that the respondent was assessed partial disability Grade 8 by the company-designated physician and respondent's private doctor; and (c) whether the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law when it awarded attorney's fees despite absence of bad faith on the part of petitioners in denying respondent's money claims. 14

This Court resolves to DENY the Petition.

The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

Elementary is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest. As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Also, it is settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts, which is not the case here. What is more, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court. 15 aCTHDA

As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, both the company-designated physician and the seafarer's private doctor assessed respondent with a disability of Grade 8 (33.59%) Impediment based on the POEA Contract — "Moderate rigidity or two thirds (2/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk." In this condition, respondent is not expected to do the strenuous manual work of an Able Seaman, whose regular functions involve strenuous manual work of lifting and carrying heavy loads of provisions and materials. 16 In short, respondent is permanently UNFIT in any capacity to return to sea duty.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121383 dated 22 July 2013 and 26 February 2014, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Normandie B. Pizarro, concuring. Rollo, pp. 38-44.

2. Id. at 70-72.

3. A domestic corporation duly licensed to engage in the manning business, organized and existing under Philippine laws, and is the local manning agent of herein petitioner SMC.

4. A foreign juridical entity engaged in the shipping business, through its local manning agent, herein petitioner MMC.

5. Rollo, p. 39.

6. Id.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 40.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 40-41.

12. Id. at 43.

13. Id. at 42-43.

14. Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 18 March 2014. Id. at 7-8.

15. P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 497 Phil. 298, 309 (2005).

16. Rollo, p. 39.