Mangaoil v. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 213103. January 17, 2023.]

REYNALD U. MANGAOIL, petitioner, vs.C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., JUAN JOSE ROCHA AND/OR REEDEREI CLAUS-PETER OFFEN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 17, 2023which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 213103 (Reynald U. Mangaoil v. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., Juan Jose Rocha and/or Reederei Claus-Peter Offen). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks the reversal of the January 27, 2014 Decision 2 and the June 18, 2014 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119989. The CA denied and set aside the February 21, 2011 and the March 31, 2011 Resolutions 4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which granted petitioner Reynald U. Mangaoil's claim for permanent total disability compensation and other benefits.

Petitioner was employed by C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., the local manning agency and agent of Reederei Claus-Peter Offen, represented by Juan Jose Rocha, 5 to work onboard MV Santa Celina with a monthly salary of US$724.00 under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessel. Mangaoil's contract of employment for a period of nine months was covered by the International Transport Workers' Federation, London under an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with respondent Reederei Claus-Peter Offen. 6

Petitioner boarded the vessel on May 8, 2008 and proceeded to perform his duties and responsibilities. 7 DETACa

On September 22, 2008, Mangaoil lost his footing while going down a stairwell and fell on the metal floor. He was immediately given emergency treatment at the ship clinic. Upon examination by a medical center in Hamburg, it was found that he sustained a "left knee injury." 8 He was given pain medication and was cleared for light duties. However, the pain persisted and Mangaoil could not perform his sea duties. Thus, he was repatriated on January 27, 2009 and underwent treatment at the company-designated clinic. He was advised to rest for six months to undergo physical therapy. 9

In June 2009, Mangaoil went to the company-designated physician because he still felt pain on his knee. On July 10, 2009, Mangaoil underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Studies in Makati Medical Center with the following results: "Complete ACL tear with PCL buckling and secondary moderate joint fluid effusion. Grade 111 medial meniscal tear." 10

On September 9, 2009, petitioner underwent reconstructive knee surgery. Thereafter, he went through physical therapy. 11

On December 11, 2009, the company-designated physician monitoring Mangaoil's left knee recommended that he continue with his physical therapy before a re-evaluation and possible discharge after 30 days. 12

On February 26, 2010, the company-designated physician declared petitioner "fit to work" and return to sea duty. However, Mangaoil still experienced pain on his left knee and found it hard to walk without a cane.

Thus, on March 21, 2010, petitioner sought the second opinion of orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Nicanor Escutin (Dr. Escutin). After thorough physical examinations and laboratory tests, Dr. Escutin certified Mangaoil to have "permanent disability and unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity as [seafarer]." 13 Mangaoil has not returned to his seafaring occupation since then.

Thus, Mangaoil filed a case and prayed for the following reliefs: (1) permanent total disability benefit of US$125,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; (2) sickness benefit allowance of US$2,896.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; (3) moral and exemplary damages of PHP500,000.00 each; (4) attorney's fees of 10% of the total award; and (5) other reliefs just and equitable. 14

Respondents averred that Mangaoil was referred to a doctor in Brazil who gave him pain medication. Petitioner also consulted with a doctor in Rotterdam who found no broken bone, thus, he was able to finish his employment. Mangaoil was repatriated on January 26, 2009 due to completion of contract. 15

Upon arrival in the Philippines, he did not report to respondents for medical assistance but instead went home to his province and consulted a hilot. It was only five months later when Mangaoil reported his condition to respondents. Despite this, respondents averred that they still referred Mangaoil to their designated clinic for examination and treatment where he underwent reconstructive surgery and physical therapy. After the surgery, he was declared fit to work.

In fine, respondents rejected Mangaoil's claims on the grounds that he is not disabled and he failed to comply with the mandatory reportorial requirements under the law.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

The arbiter found Mangaoil's complaint to be meritorious. In the Decision, 16 the LA found no reason to doubt the veracity of Dr. Escutin's report as it was "well-explained and logically presented" 17 compared to the findings of the company-designated physician. Furthermore, the LA found that Mangaoil presented substantial evidence to support his claim of total and permanent disability. Pertinent portions of the Decision read thus:

[This] have been complied with by the complainant, with his presentation of substantial evidence to support his claim of total and permanent disability. These evidence consist of his testimonial evidence in his verified Position Paper and Annexes "A" to "E," inclusive of his Position Paper.

Damages, nonetheless, are not due complainant due to the absence of bad faith on the part of respondents in any of their dealings with him.

Attorney's fees are, however, due him because he was constrained to hire the services of counsel to litigate this case.

Under the GIS Fleet Agreement with date of January 1, 2008, he is entitled to only US$89,100.00 (as annexed to respondents' Reply).

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby made ordering the respondents-companies to pay complainant US$89,100.00 as disability compensation benefit, US$2,891.00 as sickness benefit allowance, plus ten percent (10%) on top of the total award as attorney's fees. TIADCc

SO ORDERED. 18

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

Respondents appealed to the NLRC on the grounds that the arbiter: (1) disregarded the fact that Mangaoil failed to comply with the three-day reportorial requirement of the POEA-SEC upon repatriation as he consulted with a hilot instead; (2) favored Dr. Escutin's findings over those of the company-designated physician; and (3) awarded attorney's fees even when it was within their legal right to resist the claim for disability benefits and there was no bad faith. 19

In its Resolution 20 dated February 21, 2011, the NLRC affirmed the LA and found that Mangaoil clearly complied with the reporting requirement for post-employment medical examination. Likewise, the NLRC held that Dr. Escutin's findings were more comprehensive and well-explained compared to the findings of the company physician who gave no other basis for declaring Mangaoil "fit to work." As for the award of attorney's fees, the NLRC also granted this to Mangaoil. Thus, the dispositive portion of the Resolutions holds that:

WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by respondents is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Decision of Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec, dated August 10, 2010, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 21

Subsequently, the NLRC dismissed respondents' Motion for Reconsideration 22 for lack of merit in its Resolution 23 dated March 31, 2011.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision 24 dated January 27, 2014, the CA found the "NLRC's conclusions x x x to be lacking factual and legal bases, amounting to grave abuse of its discretion." 25 The CA held that Mangaoil failed to show that he was repatriated for medical reasons. Furthermore, he failed to prove that he underwent a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from arrival in the country nor did he show any evidence that he was physically incapacitated to do so, as required under labor laws. The CA held that the "unexplained omission of this requirement will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits." 26 The CA ruled in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 21, 2011 and March 31, 2011 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CN (OFW-M) No. 01-01568-10 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint filed by private respondent against petitioners is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 27

Issues

Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari28 brought by Mangaoil raising the following issues:

I. THE HONORABLE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR LACK OF POST MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE LATTER. AIDSTE

II. THE HONORABLE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS THAT THE [COMPANY-DESIGNATED] PHYSICIAN'S ASSESSMENT DESERVED MORE CREDENCE [vis-à-vis] THE PETITIONER'S SPECIALIST PHYSICIAN. 29

Our Ruling

The petition is unmeritorious.

This Court is not a trier of facts, thus, it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence anew since the CA's factual findings are conclusive and binding upon it. However, as an exception to this general rule, this Court may nevertheless proceed to probe and resolve the factual findings presented because the CA's findings are contrary to those of the LA and the NLRC. 30 Such is the case at bar.

A seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits for a work-related illness or injury is governed by the Labor Code, its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the POEA-SEC, more particularly the 2000 31 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships (2000 POEA-SEC Rules), and prevailing jurisprudence. 32

Paragraph 3, Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC Rules regarding disability benefits provides:

B. 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 [or her] contract are as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his [or her] basic wage until he [or she] is declared fit to work by the company-designated physician or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall [it] exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself [or herself] to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his [or her] 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. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his [or her] forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. (Emphasis supplied)

To be compensable, the seafarer must have: (1) suffered a work-related illness or injury during the term of his or her contract; and (2) submitted himself or herself to a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days upon his or her arrival. 33 The Court has emphasized that the purpose of the three-day mandatory reporting requirement is to enable the company-designated physician to ascertain if the seafarer's injury or illness is work-related. After that period, there would be difficulty in ascertaining the real cause of the illness. 34

The three-day reporting requirement is not absolute. The 2000 POEA-SEC Rules provide that a seafarer who is physically incapacitated to report for a post-employment examination may send a written notice to his or her agency within the same period. In the case of Status Maritime Corp. v. Spouses Delalamon, 35 the Court recognized the deteriorating condition and physical strain of the seafarer who cannot be reasonably expected to report to his or her employer's office to comply with the rules. The seafarer, through his wife, notified his employer of his failing health condition upon being diagnosed with a serious illness. AaCTcI

Based on this, Mangaoil's claim for disability benefits must be denied. It is evident that Mangaoil was repatriated due to the expiration of his contract on January 27, 2009. Regardless of the cause of his repatriation, though, he was still required to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination to be conducted by a company-designated physician. This must be done within three working days upon Mangaoil's return to ascertain if he was really suffering from a work-related injury. Mangaoil may only be excused from such requirement if he was physically incapacitated to do so and submits a written notice to his employer within the same period.

This is not the case at bar. The CA correctly found that:

Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC gave credence to the claim of [Mangaoil] that he submitted himself for post-employment medical examination upon his arrival in the country, offering as evidence the MRI Consultation Report dated July 10, 2009 issued by the Makati Medical Center and the letter dated December 11, 2009 by Dr. Leticia Abesamis of the American Outpatient Clinic (American Hospital, Inc.), the company-designated physician.

These documents, however, do not prove that [Mangaoil] reported to the company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation on January 27, 2009 for post-employment medical examination. The MRI Consultation Report was done more than five months after his arrival to the country. Other than his bare allegations that he reported to the company-designated physician upon his arrival and was advised to take a six-month rest, there is nothing else to show for such claim. On the other hand, [respondents] presented a letter dated July 8, 2009 and signed by [Mangaoil] addressed to [respondents] requesting for medical assistance, wherein [Mangaoil] admitted that he did not report to [respondents] or to the company-designated physician within three days of his repatriation. Despite this letter having been attached by [respondents] in their position paper, the existence or execution thereof was not denied by [Mangaoil] in his reply thereto. In effect, therefore, [Mangaoil does] not dispute the existence of this letter admitting that he failed to report to [respondents] within three days of his repatriation.

xxx xxx xxx

There is no evidence that [Mangaoil] was physically incapacitated to subject himself to a post-employment medical examination within three days from his repatriation. Hence, the mandatory reporting requirement cannot be dispensed with. His failure to comply with this requirement barred him from claiming disability benefits from petitioners. 36 (Emphasis supplied)

While this Court commiserates with Mangaoil's plight, noncompliance with the requirements under Paragraph 3, Sec. 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC Rules renders it difficult to ascertain if his injury was really work-related.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no further need to discuss the other issues.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The January 27, 2014 Decision and the June 18, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119989 are AFFIRMED. SDHTEC

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 24-50.

2. Id. at 8-20. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Romeo F. Barza.

3. Id. at 6-7.

4. CA rollo, pp. 54-58, 60-61. Penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog, III and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.

5. Rollo, pp. 8-9.

6. CA rollo, pp. 104-119.

7. Id. at 104-111.

8. Id. at 120-121.

9. Rollo, p. 9.

10. CA rollo, p. 122.

11. Rollo, p. 9.

12. CA rollo, p. 123.

13. Id. at 124-125.

14. Id. at 203.

15. Rollo, p. 129.

16. CA rollo, pp. 200-207.

17. Id. at 205.

18. Id. at 207.

19. Rollo, p. 11.

20. CA rollo, pp. 54-58.

21. Id. at 58.

22. Id. at 60.

23. Id. at 60-61.

24. Rollo, pp. 8-20.

25. Id. at 13.

26. Id. at 15.

27. Id. at 19.

28. Id. at 24-50.

29. Id. at 38.

30. Ville v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 217879, February 1, 2021, citing Ranoa v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc., 926 Phil. 526, 537 (2019).

31. Mangaoil's contract of employment began on May 8, 2008, thus, the 2000 POEA-SEC Rules apply to him.

32. Hartman Crew Phils. v. Acabado, G.R. No. 249567, September 29, 2021.

33. Cabatan v. Southeast Asia Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 219495, February 28, 2022.

34. Manila Shipmanagement & Manning, Inc. v. Aninang, 824 Phil. 916, 926 (2018); Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. De Leon, 804 Phil. 279, 286 (2017); InterOrient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III, 743 Phil. 164, 179 (2014); Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan, 693 Phil. 416, 429 (2012); and Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undang, 678 Phil. 938, 948-949 (2011).

35. 740 Phil. 175, 191-192 (2014).

36. Rollo, pp. 15 and 17.