FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225275. July 24, 2019.]
MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC. AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD., complainants, vs.MARCELITO T. ANG, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 24, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225275 (Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Marcelito T. Ang, Jr.). — We reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated November 20, 2015 and Resolution 2 dated June 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and hold that respondent failed to prove that his illness is work-related. Hence, respondent is not entitled to receive permanent and total disability benefits.
The facts as summarized by the NLRC and adopted by the CA, are as follows:
Complainant (herein petitioner) was hired by respondents as an ordinary seaman with a contract of employment for ten (10) months. His monthly salary was pegged at USD$450.00. Complainant departed from the country on August 30, 2009 aboard respondent's vessel, MV Beluga Fanfare.
On February 5, 2010, while climbing down the cargo hold, complainant slipped his foot and fell down resulting to pain and swelling of his right knee. He was immediately brought to the hospital in Gladstone, Australia where he was diagnosed to have a Right Knee Cartilage and Ligament Rupture. He was advised to take a rest and was not allowed to put weight on his right leg. Likewise, he was advised that there was a need to consult an orthopedic surgeon and have an MRI.
On February 9, 2010, complainant was repatriated back to the Philippines, and, on the following day, he was referred to Dr. Michael Tom J. Arago (Dr. Arago), the company designated doctor for further medical care and treatment.
In Dr. Arago's Medical Abstract, he stated that complainant was likewise checked by other specialists including orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jose Bautista (Dr. Bautista) who, in turn, requested that complainant undergo MRI. On February 16, 2010, an MRI was made on complainant which revealed the following results: "ACL sprain or partial tear with associated bony trabecular injury involving the lateral tibial plateau and lateral formal condyle; Tear at the junction of the anterior horn with the body of the medical meniscus; Possible tear involving the body of the lateral meniscus; Tricompartmental degenerative joint disease with joint space narrowing, cartilage thinning, marginal osteophyte formation and mild lateral femoral subchondial cystic changes as well as peripheral presudosubluxation of the lateral and medial menisci; and Small amount of joint effusion; Edema involving the patellofemoral synovium and suprapatellar bursa; Intramuscular tears involving the popliteus muscle."
Dr. Arago stated in his abstract that on March 18, 2010[,] complainant made a follow-up consultation with Dr. Bautista and he was scheduled for surgery. Complainant underwent numerous medical examinations before his surgery. On April 11, 2010, complainant was admitted at Manila Doctors Hospital and on the following day underwent Arthroscopy, Meniscectomy and Synovectomy done by Dr. Bautista. Complainant was discharged from the hospital on April 14, 2010. On April 19, 2010, complainant made a follow-up consultation with Dr. Bautista who found that the swelling of his knee has subsided and he's able to ambulate with a cane. Upon complainant's request he was referred to another doctor in Davao for continuation of his treatment. He was advised to follow-up after a month.
Dr. Arago states that complainant was placed under the care of Dr. Melanie Theresa P. Hernandez, Physiatrist at East Asia Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Institute, Davao City. Complainant underwent several evaluations and physical therapy. On June 21, 2010, complainant met with Dr. Bautista and allowed him to perform some tolerable activities but was advised to continue seeing his Rheumatologist and/or Nephrologist. Dr. Arago's diagnosis include: "Chronic gout arthritis with Medical Meniscus Tear, Right Knee; Status Post Arthroscopy, Meniscectomy & Synovectomy; Urinary Tract Infection, resolved; Impaired Fasting Glucose; Azotemia, Etiology to be determined.
On February 7, 2013, Dr. Melanie P. Herrera of the East Asia Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Institute issued a Medical Certificate for complainant with the following recommendation: "Patient cannot any more engage in activities that require running, jumping, climbing ladder and lifting heavy objects due to his previous (R) knee injury even if it has healed already."
On February 12, 2013, Dr. Jeanette R. Ybiernas of the Central Lab Diabetes Wellness, Heart and Kidneys issued a Medical Certificate for complainant with the following recommendation: "Patient can't anymore go back to work due to hemodialysis requirements. Permanent disability with Grade 1 impediment."
On February 16, 2013, complainant sent a demand letter to respondents for the payment of USD60,000.00 as his Permanent Total Disability benefit under the POEA contract and the refund of his medical and medicine expenses in the total amount of P90,613.86. Attached to the demand letter is a statement of account of complainant as well as receipts. Respondents refused to pay complainant these demands, hence, the latter instituted the instant complaint including the payment of damages and attorney's fees.
For their part, respondents counter that complainant is not entitled to disability benefits as his condition fails to meet the requirements provided for in the amended POEA Contract for Compensability.
xxx xxx xxx
Respondents argue that complainant has been declared fit for sea duty as of June 21, 2010 and therefore, he was not entitled to any disability benefit under the amended POEA contract. They contend that, under the POEA contract, the finding of fitness to work and/or finding of disability should be based from the medical assessment of the company-designated physician. Thus, complainant was not entitled to disability benefits since the company-designated physician has issued an opinion that he was cleared for his Medical Meniscus Tear, Right Knee. To respondents' mind, complainant's End Stage Renal Disease was not suffered on board the vessel and was not the medical condition which caused his repatriation, hence, it could not be made as the basis of any claim for disability benefit.
Respondents posit that complainant's End Stage Renal Disease is not work-related under the amended POEA Contract; thus, complainant is not entitled to disability benefits.
Moreover, respondents maintain that complainant has waived all his entitlement to any benefits by virtue of his execution of a "Certificate of Fitness to Work" which released them from whatever claim the complainant may have arising from his contract of employment. Further, they assert that the present claim for disability benefits has been barred by prescription/laches since it was filed three (3) years after the occurrence of his injury. Respondents contend that complainant is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees because of lack of evident bad faith on their part. 3
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. 4 The LA held that respondent was not entitled to disability benefits since he was declared fit to work on June 21, 2010 by the company-designated physician after undergoing medical treatment for his medical meniscus tear, right knee. The LA also ruled that respondent's End Stage Renal Disease was not suffered on board the vessel and not the cause of his medical repatriation; therefore, not compensable.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in its Resolution 5 dated November 29, 2013 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the LA's decision that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits because he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician. 6 The NLRC also denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. 7
The CA reversed the LA and NLRC and held that respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. 8 The certification that respondent is fit to work does not make him ineligible for permanent and total disability benefits because from the time respondent was repatriated on February 9, 2010 until the issuance of the fit to work certification on June 21, 2010, respondent was unable to work for more than 120 days. Thus, respondent's disability is considered permanent and total and should be entitled to disability allowance. The CA also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 9
In this petition, 10 petitioners raise the following arguments: (1) they have fulfilled all their responsibilities towards respondent; (2) while 132 days have lapsed from respondent's repatriation until the issuance of the fit to work certification, it was respondent himself who requested for an extension of his medical treatment; 11 (3) respondent's claim has already prescribed. The prescriptive period should be reckoned from respondent's injury on February 5, 2010. They emphasized that it was only on February 9, 2013, or after the lapse the three-year prescriptive period, when respondent filed the present action; 12 and (4) respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees. 13
We grant the petition. Respondent is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 14 we harmonized Article 192 (c) (1) of the Labor Code, Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation (AREC), and Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC (now Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC) and explained when a temporary disability of a worker becomes permanent, thus:
[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition. 15 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, the mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically render the disability of the seafarer permanent and total. The period may be extended to 240 days should the circumstances justify the same. 16 Here, the company designated physician's declaration that respondent was fit to work was rendered on June 21, 2010, 132 days from, or more than 120 days from, respondent's repatriation to the Philippines on February 9, 2010. Petitioners however, cannot be faulted for failure to make the said declaration within the 120-day period. As correctly argued by petitioners, respondent requested on April 14, 2010 that he be referred to Davao for the continuation of his treatment. While respondent was advised to follow up after a month, it was only on June 21, 2010 that he went back to Dr. Arago who declared him cleared to go to back to work as seafarer effective on the same date. These circumstances warranted an extension of the period for the determination of his disability or fitness to work to a maximum of 240 days as the delay was not due to petitioners' fault. Thus, we rule that the company-designated physician's determination was made within the allowed period and that respondent's illness is not permanent and total.
Neither can respondent's diagnosis with chronic renal failure and end-stage renal disease be the basis of the grant of permanent and total disability benefits. These diagnoses were made only on February 7, 2013 and February 12, 2013, respectively, three years after respondent's repatriation. We emphasize that it was only the diagnosis for "Medical Meniscus Tear, Right" which Dr. Arago classified as work-related. More, it was only after almost three years from the time that Dr. Arago declared respondent fit to work that respondent was diagnosed to be suffering from chronic renal failure and end-stage renal disease, respectively.
In Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., 17 we reiterated the rule that not only must the seafarer establish that his injury or illness rendered him permanently or partially disabled, it is equally pertinent that he shows a causal connection between such injury or illness and the work for which he had been contracted. It is incumbent upon the seafarer to prove, by substantial evidence, as to how and why the nature of his work and working conditions contributed to and/or aggravated his illness. 18 Thus, as correctly ruled by the NLRC, respondent had the burden to prove that his end stage renal disease was work-related and that it existed during the term of his employment. This, respondent failed to do. Nothing in the records show how and why respondent's working conditions caused him to develop chronic renal failure and/or end-stage renal disease. Not only did he fail to describe his working conditions, there was also no evidence presented to explain the causes of respondent's chronic renal failure and/or end-stage renal disease. Consequently, even assuming that respondent could no longer go back to work because of his chronic renal failure and end-stage renal disease, he is still not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits from petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 20, 2015 and Resolution dated June 20, 2016 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated November 29, 2013 and February 28, 2014 are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED."Del Castillo, J., on official leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2680 dated July 12, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 43-58; penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito A. Perez.
2.Id. at 60-61; penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo A. Camello.
3.Id. at 44-48.
4.Id. at 302-307.
5.Id. at 308-316.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, pp. 317-318.
8.Supra note 1.
9.Supra note 2.
10.Rollo, pp. 10-35.
11.Id. at 19-20.
12.Id. at 25-29.
13.Id. at 29-32.
14. G.R. No. 172933, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 610; cited in Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 223035, February 27, 2017, 818 SCRA 663.
15.Id. at 628.
16.Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc., et al. v. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 195878, January 10, 2018, 850 SCRA 256, 271.
17. G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016, 784 SCRA 292.
18.Status Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Spouses Delalamon, G.R. No. 198097, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 390.