FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243475. June 23, 2021.]
MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES, INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD. AND MR. ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., petitioners, vs. CANDIDO B. LACABA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243475 (Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc., Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. and Mr. Antonio Galvez, Jr., Petitioners, v. Candido B. Lacaba, Jr., Respondent.) — In this Petition for Review (Petition), Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc., Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. and Mr. Antonio Galvez, Jr. (collectively, petitioners) seek to reverse and set aside the Decision dated 22 June 2018 1 and Resolution dated 10 December 2018 2 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149695. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) awarding Candido B. Lacaba, Jr. (respondent) total and permanent disability benefits based on the provisions of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), or the ITF IMEC IBF CBA.
Antecedents
The CA summarized the factual antecedents of the case in the following manner:
On June 16, 2014, petitioner Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., the local agent of petitioner Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., hired Candido to work onboard MV HHL Congo as Oiler for nine months. On January 13, 2015, MV HHL Congo was in Stanley Port, Falkland Islands. Candido who was then on duty at the gangway watch, felt intense pain in his lower back after he pulled the accommodation ladder resting on the pier. He was immediately brought to King Edward VII Memorial Hospital where he was admitted for six days, diagnosed with "acute muscular lumbar back pain" and was declared "fit for light duties only, no lifting or bending" upon discharge. The pain in Candido's lower back persisted for the following three weeks. On February 3, 2015, he was brought to a hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where he was diagnosed with "lumbar disc hernia on spaces L4-L5 & L5-S1." Candido was thereafter medically repatriated.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, Candido was examined by the company-designated physician at El Roi Medical Clinic & Diagnostic Center, Inc. and was initially diagnosed with "bilateral neuroforaminal stenosis L5-S1." From February to May 2015, Candido underwent physiotherapy until he was referred to an orthopedist/spine surgeon who advised that he undergo surgery. His operation was done on May 19, 2015. After the operation, he resumed physiotherapy but still noted limitation of motion of the lumbar area.
An initial disability grading of Grade 8 — moderate rigidity or two-thirds loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk was issued by the company-designated physician on June 2, 2015. The report also estimated Candido's recuperation period at six months to one year post-surgery. Candido's physiotherapy was continued until a final disability grading of Grade 11 — slight rigidity or two-thirds loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk — was issued on August 12, 2015. It was recommended that Candido "[c]ontinue physiotherapy of the LS spine," and that his recovery period is still approximated at six months to one year after surgery.
Candido then consulted orthopedic expert, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira. After physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Magtira found that Candido "has lost his pre-injury capacity and is UNFIT to work back at his previous occupation. Mr. Lacaba, Jr. is now permanently disabled." Thereafter, Candido sent a letter to Marlow Navigation informing them of his continued permanent and total disability and asked for the appointment of a third doctor. He also furnished Marlow the medical report of his independent physician. This request was unheeded. Consequently, Candido submitted his claims [for] total and permanent disability benefits, damages and attorney's fees for arbitration.
In his position paper, Candido alleged that he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits since his injury was caused by an accident on board the vessel. Even after surgery, he is still incapacitated for sea duties. The amount of benefits must be based on the CBA.
The petitioners countered that Candido did not follow the procedure to contest the findings of the company-designated doctor. Candido pursued his claim before the labor tribunals without referring the conflicting medical opinions to a third doctor. Assuming that Candido is entitled to disability benefits, it is limited to Grade 11 disability assessed by the company-appointed doctor. Petitioners also alleged that Candido is not entitled to damages and attorney's fees. 3
Ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrators
The panel of voluntary arbitrators, through its Decision dated 23 November 2016, 4 ruled that respondent met an accident on board MV HHL Congo causing him injury. The accident is within the purview of the ITF IMEC IBF CBA thereby entitling him to permanent and total disability benefits, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is GRANTED and respondents are hereby held liable to pay complainant the amount of USD$95,949.00 for permanent total disability benefits pursuant to the provisions of the ITF IMEC IBF CBA, or in its peso equivalent at the time of payment.
Furthermore, attorney's fees at ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award is granted.
All claims for damages are hereby denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 5
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the panel of voluntary arbitrators denied the same through its Resolution dated 31 January 2017. 6
Decision of the CA
On 22 June 2018, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision denying the appeal filed by petitioners, viz.:
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the petition for review is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.7
According to the CA, respondent's injury cannot be considered an accident within the meaning of the law. Nevertheless, Article 25.4 of the CBA, which provides "any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the Company-nominated doctor, shall also be entitled to 100% compensation," is still applicable. Moreover, respondent's total disability benefits should be sustained considering the company-designated physician's reports on the need for his continued physiotherapy and the assessment of respondent's physician stating he is permanently disabled. 8
The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration through the assailed Resolution dated 10 December 2018. 9
Issues
Petitioners proffer the following issues for the Court's resolution, hence:
I. Whether the CA committed a serious and reversible error of law when it applied the preferential rates under the CBA.
II. Whether the CA committed a serious and reversible error of law when it awarded total and permanent disability compensation.
III. Whether the CA committed a serious and reversible error of law when it disregarded the findings of the company-designated physicians.
IV. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious and reversible error of law when it awarded attorney's fees. 10
In sum, the Court is tasked to rule on whether respondent was correctly awarded total and permanent disability benefits in accordance with the ITF IMEC IBF CBA.
Ruling of the Court
The Petition lacks merit.
The company-designated physician
In determining whether a seafarer in entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, the Court considers both the law and the contract governing a seafarer's overseas employment. Section 20 (A) (6) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides that "[t]he 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."
Nevertheless, the Court has repeatedly held that before the disability grading under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC should be considered, the disability rating should be properly established and contained in a valid and timely medical report of a company-designated physician. Thus, the foremost consideration of the courts should be to determine whether the medical assessment or report of the company-designated physician was complete, timely, and appropriately issued; otherwise, the medical report shall be set aside and the disability grading contained therein cannot be seriously appreciated. 11
Indeed, while it is the primary responsibility of the company-designated physician to determine the disability grading or fitness to work of seafarers, the medical assessment or report must be complete and definite in order to be conclusive upon the courts. A "final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. Otherwise, the corresponding disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered." 12 The Court has not hesitated to set aside tardy, doubtful, and incomplete assessments even if issued by a company-designated physician. 13
Based on the above tenets, the Court cannot consider the Grade 11 disability assessment given by the company-designated physician on 12 August 2015 as final, definite, and conclusive. It must first be noted that respondent's treatment was validly extended from 120 days to 240 days from his repatriation on 4 February 2015 due to his continued need for physiotherapy. However, the supposed "final" assessment on 12 August 2015, while issued within 240 days from repatriation, still recommended for respondent to "[c]ontinue physiotherapy of the LS spine" as his recovery period is still approximated at six (6) months to one (1) year after his surgery on 19 May 2015. 14 Clearly, respondent has not reached maximum medical improvement when the company-designated physician issued the alleged "final" assessment as there was a need for continued physiotherapy. It bears stressing that the company-designated physician had until 2 October 2015 to issue a final disability assessment wherein respondent's condition would have reflected the result of the recommended physiotherapy. Therefore, the assessment on 12 August 2015 did not truly reveal the extent of respondent's sickness. It required further action and was issued without exhausting all possible treatment options within the periods allowed by law. 15
Given the invalid disability assessment by the company-designated physician, it was unnecessary for respondent to even refer such findings to his doctor of choice, much less to a third doctor agreed upon by the parties. Such conflict resolution mechanism, as outlined in Section 20 (A) (3) 16 of the POEA-SEC, only takes effect if the company-designated physician had issued a valid and definite medical assessment. Without such valid final and definitive assessment, the law already steps in to consider the seafarer's disability as total and permanent. 17
Respondent's injury was not the result
We agree with the CA's conclusion that respondent's injury was not the result of an accident, which this Court has defined in NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. Illescas (NFD International)18 in the following manner:
Black's Law Dictionary defines "accident" as "[a]n unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated, . . . [a]n unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct."
The Philippine Law Dictionary defines the word "accident" as "[t]hat which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen."
"Accident," in its commonly accepted meaning, or in its ordinary sense, has been defined as:
[A] fortuitous circumstance, event, or happening, an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens . . .
The word may be employed as denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence, that causes injury, loss, suffering or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual course of events.
In NFD International, the Court did not consider the snap on the back of the seafarer as an accident, but an injury sustained from carrying the heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps. The injury cannot be deemed an accident or an unlooked-for mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the injury resulted from the performance of a duty. 19
Similarly, respondent suffered an injury when he attempted to move a heavy object while he was on gangway watch duty. He tried to move the accommodation ladder by himself instead of calling the duty Officer 20 thereby causing intense pain on his lower back. Although the injury may not have been expected, "it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can cause back injury," 21 as what happened in this case.
Conversely, the Court, in Sunga v. Virjen Shipping Corp., 22 ruled that therein seafarer's injury was a result of an accident since there were external factors contributing to the injury, to wit:
Illescas also claimed for the more favorable disability benefits stated in the CBA, as opposed to the benefits being offered by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers. But the Court denied his claim, ruling that the snap on the back of Illescas was not an accident but an injury sustained from carrying the heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, which injury resulted in his disability. The Court reasoned out that the injury cannot be said to be the result of an accident, i.e., an unlooked for mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the injury resulted from the performance of a duty. Although Illescas may not have expected the injury, yet, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can cause back injury. Hence, the injury cannot be viewed as unusual under the circumstances, and is not synonymous with the term "accident."
While on its face, the facts seemed similar, they are in fact different, thus leading us to decide the present case differently. In Illescas, no unusual, fortuitous, unexpected or unforeseen event took place or was reported. Illescas merely went about his normal duties; he transported fire hydrant caps from the deck to the engine workshop, then back to the deck to refit the caps. The sudden snap Illescas felt on his back while carrying the fire hydrant caps thus could not, by itself, qualify as an accident.
In the present case, Sunga did not incur the injury while solely performing his regular duties; an intervening event transpired which brought upon the injury. To repeat, the two other oilers who were supposed to help carry the weight of the 200-kilogram globe valve lost their grasp of the globe valve. As a result, Sunga's back snapped when the entire weight of the item fell upon bim. n The sheer weight of the item is designed not to be carried by just one person, but as was observed, meant to be undertaken by several men and expectedly greatly overwhelmed the physical limits of an average person. Notably, this incident cannot be considered as foreseeable, nor can it be reasonably anticipated. Sunga's duty as a fitter involved changing the valve, not to routinely carry a 200-kilogram globe valve singlehandedly. The loss of his fellow workers' group was also unforeseen in so far as Sunga was concerned. (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, the injury of respondent in this case cannot be considered unusual under the circumstances as there were no external factors. He did not even slip or fall 23 nor was he inadvertently hit by any ship equipment. 24
It is also noteworthy that the ship captain, in his Report dated 13 January 2015, noted improper handling, lack of training, and lack of experience as indirect causes to respondent's injury. 25 Further, respondent was instructed to call the duty officer in case of doubt in his tasks. 26 Instead, respondent attempted to move the accommodation ladder by himself. Since by its meaning, an accident is an "occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct," 27 respondent's injury cannot truly be considered an accident within the meaning of the law.
Correspondingly, the rates under the ITF IMEC IBF CBA covering respondent's employment cannot be applied in his case. In Julleza v. Orient Line Philippines, Inc., 28 the Court reiterated that Article 28 of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA is limited to injuries arising from accidents, viz.:
The provisions of the CBA state:
Article 28: Disability
28.1. A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer is reduced as a result thereof, but excluding permanent disability due to wilful acts, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.
28.2. The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated jointly between the Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor shall be final and binding on both parties.
28.3. The Company shall provide disability compensation to the seafarer in accordance with APPENDIX 3, with any differences, including less than ten percent (10%) disability, to be pro rata.
28.4. A seafarer whose disability, in accordance with 28.2 above is assessed at fifty percent (50%) or more under the attached APPENDIX 3 shall, for the purpose of this paragraph, be regarded as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity and be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) compensation. Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less than fifty percent (50%) disability but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the Company-nominated doctor, shall also be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) compensation. Any disagreement as to the assessment or entitlement shall be resolved in accordance with clause 28.2 above.
28.5. Any payment effected under 28.1 to 28.4 above, shall be without prejudice to any claim for compensation made in law, but may be deducted from any settlement in respect of such claims. (Emphasis on the original)
A reading of the foregoing shows that it only covers disabilities arising from accidents. In fact, in Fil-Star Maritime Corp. v. Rosete, the Court ruled that Article 28 of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA, which also covers petitioner, is limited to injuries arising from accidents, thus:
The CBA provisions on disability are not applicable to respondent's case because Article 28 thereon specifically refers to disability sustained after an accident. Article 28 of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA specifically states that:
Article 28: Disability
28.1. A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer as a result thereof, but excluding permanent disability due to wilful acts, shall be in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement. x x x
The Court likewise ruled in Island Overseas Transport Corp. v. Beja, which involved the same clause 28.1, that it only covers injuries resulting from accidents. And since the seafarer's knee injury was not proven to have been the result of an accident, his disability benefits should be based on the POEA-SEC and not the CBA. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 25 of the ITF IMEC IBF CBA is similarly worded as Article 28 of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA, thus:
Article 25: Disability
25.1 A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer is reduced as a result thereof, but excluding permanent disability due to wilful (sic) acts, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.
25.2 The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated jointly between the Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor shall be final and binding on both parties.
25.3 The Company shall provide disability compensation to the seafarer in accordance with APPENDIX 3, with any difference, including less than 10% disability, to be pro rata.
25.4 A seafarer whose disability, in accordance with 25.2 above is assessed at 50% or more shall, for the purpose of this paragraph, be regarded as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity and be entitled to 100% compensation. Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the Company-nominated doctor, shall also be entitled to 100% compensation. Any disagreement as to the assessment or entitlement shall be resolved in accordance with clause 25.2 above.
25.5 Any payment effected under 25.1 to 25.4 above, shall be without prejudice to any claim for compensation made in law, but may be deducted from any settlement in respect of such claims.
25.6 Shipowners, in discharging their responsibilities to provide for safe and decent working conditions, should have effective arrangements for the payment of compensation for personal injury. When a claim arises, payment should be made promptly and in full, and there should be no pressure by the shipowner or by the representative of the insurers for a payment less than the contractual amount due under this Agreement. Where the nature of the personal injury makes it difficult for the shipowner to make a full payment of the claim, consideration to be given to the payment of an interim amount so as to avoid undue hardship.
Given the foregoing, the CA erred in applying Article 25.4 of the ITF IMEC IBF CBA despite its conclusion that respondent's injury was not a result of an accident.
Respondent remains entitled to total
Nonetheless, the provisions under the POEA-SEC applies to respondent, to wit:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. 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 contract are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
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 his 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. (Additional emphasis supplied)
In accordance with Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, respondent is entitled to USD$60,000.00 since his injury is considered total and permanent.
The award of attorney's fees at ten percent (10%) of the aggregate monetary awards is also warranted. Attorney's fees are recoverable when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest. Under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, attorney's fees may be recovered in actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. 29
Lastly, the total monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied. 30
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 22 June 2018 and Resolution dated 10 December 2018 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149695 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent Candido B. Lacaba, Jr. is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits in the total amount of USD$60,000.00 and attorney's fees at ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award granted.
Petitioners are also ORDERED to pay interest on the monetary awards in favor of Candido B. Lacaba, Jr. at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
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. 42-51; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
2.Id. at 53-54.
3.Id. at 42-44.
4. CA rollo, pp. 39-47.
5.Id. at p. 47.
6.Id. at pp. 48-49.
7.Rollo, p. 50.
8.Id. at pp. 45-50.
9.Id. at 53-54.
10.Rollo, p. 16.
11.Tamin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., 794 Phil. 286 (2016), G.R. No. 220608, 31 August 2016 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
12.Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. v. Atraje, 836 Phil. 1061 (2018), G.R. No. 229192, 23 July 2018 [Per J. Leonen], citing Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., 806 Phil. 505 (2017), G.R. No. 223035, 27 February 2017 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
13.See Toquero v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., G.R. No. 213482, 26 June 2019 [Per J. Leonen].
14. Records, p. 138.
15.Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 213874, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
16. 3. x x x
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his 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. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties; see Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, 26 October 2010.
17.Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 241674, 10 June 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
18. 646 Phil. 244 (2010), G.R. No. 183054, 29 September 2010 [Per J. Peralta].
19.Id.
20.Rollo, p. 46.
21.Supra at note 18.
22.Sunga v. Virjen Shipping Corp., 734 Phil. 281 (2014), G.R. No. 198640, 23 April 2014 [Per J. Brion].
23.See Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Sales, G.R. No. 196455, 08 July 2019 [Per J. Carandang]; see also Cariño v. Maine Marine Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 231111, 17 October 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
24.See Paleracio v. Sealanes Marine Services, Inc., 835 Phil. 997 (2018), G.R. No. 229153, 09 July 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
25. CA rollo, p. 108.
26.Rollo, p. 46.
27.Philsynergy Maritime, Inc. v. Gallano, Jr., 832 Phil. 992 (2018), G.R. No. 228504, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
28. G.R. No. 225190, 29 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
29.Supra at note 15.
30.See Corpuz, Jr. v. Gerwil Crewing Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 205725, 18 January 2021 [Per J. Gesmundo].
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.