THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242502. October 6, 2021.]
MOT-BARKO MANILA, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs.LUIS D. HUBILLA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242502 (MOT-Barko Manila, Incorporated, Petitioner, v. Luis D. Hubilla, Respondent.) — Under review is the Decision 1 dated 22 January 2018 and Resolution 2 dated 18 September 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146803. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated 31 March 2016 and Resolution 4 dated 13 June 2016 of the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) in MVA-028-RCMB-NCR-050-06-05-2015, ordering MOT-Barko Manila, Incorporated (MOT-Barko) to pay Luis D. Hubilla (Hubilla) his permanent total disability benefits, as well as attorney's fees.
Antecedents
The CA adopted the factual findings of the PVA, which is summarized as follows:
Complaint [Luis D. Hubilla] entered into a contract of employment with respondent MITSUBISHI ORE TRANSPORT CO. LTD., through its local manning agent, respondent MOT-BARKO MANILA, INC.[,] to work on board the vessel MV SANTA GRACIELA as Oiler on September 20, 2013 for a period of nine (9) months with the basic monthly salary of US$584.00[.] Complainant's employment is covered by an IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA" for brevity).
Complainant joined his vessel of assignment on October 9, 2013 and efficiently performed his duties on board the vessel MV Santa Graciela.
As Oiler, (sic) of M/V Santa Graciela[,] a huge ship with gross registered tonnage of 43,025 is highly stressful. His work entails not only to oil the bearings of the main engine and auxiliaries and to stand watch in the engine room. Among his duties are, at sea, when the main engine turns at a steady speed, a (sic) oiler makes regular rounds usually every half hour[,] feeling all the various bearings on and checking the temperature and pressure of all the machineries. He immediately reports and logs any of all abnormalities in the engine room. In between his regular rounds, he checks the engine room auxiliaries, refrigerating system[,] and steering engine. He must thoroughly understand the operation of the different types of temperature and pressure and gravity systems. The actual oiling of the machinery takes up but little of the oiler's time. However, he should have (sic) entire engine room under his constant surveillance. His watch at sea and in port is of (sic) four hours, with eight hours off in between, followed by another four-hour watch. During his watch, an oiler is often called upon to do any or all of the following: pump out the bilges[,] pump up fresh water or ballast tanks, keep an eye on the water level in the boilers, and other jobs as ordered [by] his officers[.] He also keeps oil wiped up (sic) off the floor plates and gratings. In port[,] his work consists mainly of oiling the auxiliaries, cleaning[,] and scavenging the lantern space, assisting in the maintenance and repair of the engine room and other assignments given by the engineer.
On or about January 4, 2014, complainant suffered and complained of fever, vomiting, chills, shaking of the fingers of both hands and weight loss. He disembarked on said date and was treated at Rumah Sakit Haji Darja, Samarinda, Indonesia[,] where he was initially diagnosed to have dengue. Capt. Nathaniel T. Taton, the ships's (sic) Master, later cleared complainant to travel. Thus, on January 29, 2014[,] complainant was repatriated to Manila. Upon arrival[,] he was referred to Medical Center Manila. He was initially found to have "acute gastro enteritis," given medications therefor (sic), and discharged the following day. However, complainant continued to suffer recurrence of vomiting with associated loose bowel movement. Respondents then referred him to Manila Doctors (sic) Doctor's Hospital. The laboratory work-ups at MDH did not help complainant's condition. Respondents, on June 17, 2014, almost five months after [the] onset of his ailment, referred him to the Department of Radiological Sciences of the Cardinal Santos Medical Center. There[,] he was found out to have "Thyromegaly" with Scintigraphic features of hyperfunction in superior left lobe; elevated 2 and 24-hour RAI uptake values'. Respondents referred complainant for further evaluation at (sic) another company physician, Marine Medical Services (MMS) which diagnosed him to be suffering from "systemic (sic) Viral Illness; hyperthyroidism. Despite the finding of their own doctors of seriousness of his illness and their clear liability therefore (sic), respondents did not cause medical treatment to complainant in order to arrest his illness and fully recover to reach maximum medical improvement. Instead, they left complainant without care, leaving his illness to worsen and his health to deteriorate. In the meantime, complainant continued and still continues to suffer from the illness he acquired while working with respondents. Unable to get anything from the respondents or to gain employment because of his health condition, complainant buys (sic) his own medicines to somehow ameliorate his illness and supports (sic) himself and his family from his meager income as tricycle driver. He has lost [his] work as a seaman, the only livelihood which he is trained to do. 5 (Editing not ours)
On the other hand, MOT-Barko alleged that after a series of evaluation and treatment, Hubilla was found to be suffering with Hyperthyroidism, which was declared by the company-designated physician on 10 March 2014 as "not work-related." The company-designated physician likewise suggested that to cure Hubilla's condition, he would have to undergo surgery or Radioactive Ablation Iodine Treatment, which Hubilla allegedly refused to take. MOT-Barko also claimed that Hubilla was continuously treated and evaluated despite the finding that his sickness was not work-related. On 24 July 2014, the company-designated specialist declared that Hubilla had reached the maximum medical improvement by reason of his refusal to undergo surgery. Hubilla was also officially discharged from post-medical care. 6
Thereafter, Hubilla filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits against MOT-Barko on 22 April 2015. The parties agreed to submit the dispute before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators but since no amicable settlement was reached, the parties were required to submit their Position Papers. 7
Hubilla claimed that he was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement or, at least under his POEA Contract of Employment in the amount of: Ninety five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine U.S. Dollars (US$95,949.00) for total and permanent disability; Two Hundred Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Two and 64/100 (US$296,462.64) for loss of future income; moral and exemplary damages; attorney's fees of 25% of the total award; and 12% interest. 8 Meanwhile, MOT-Barko prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of cause of action because Hubilla's illness was "not work-related" according to the company-designated physician, and it was not caused by any accident while on board, hence, not compensable under the CBA. 9
On 31 March 2016, the PVA rendered its Decision in favor of Hubilla. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, judgment is hereby promulgated DIRECTING the respondents, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY, to pay complainant the following amount, to wit:
1. Disability Benefits in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars (USD60,000.00);
2. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 10
When its Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the Panel of Arbitrators, MOT-Barko filed before the CA a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. 11
Ruling of the CA
On 22 January 2018, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision affirming the ruling of the PVA. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby GRANTED [sic].
Accordingly, the Decision dated 31 March 2016 and Resolution dated 13 June 2016 of the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in MVA-028-RCMB-NCR-050-06-05-2015 granting Luis D. Hubilla his disability benefits and attorney's fees are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12 (Emphasis supplied)
The CA ruled that Hubilla's hyperthyroidism is compensable pursuant to Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) under the Department of Labor and Employment's (DOLE) Department Order (DO) No. 4, Series of 2000. It found Hubilla's illness was work-related and existed during the term of his employment contract. The CA noted that while hyperthyroidism is attributed to genetic influence, it found a reasonable work connection between Hubilla's stressful condition at work as an oiler, and the development of his hyperthyroidism. According to the CA, his constant exposure to hazards such as chemicals and the varying temperature, like the heat in the engine of the vessel, coupled by stressful tasks in his employment caused, or at least aggravated his illness. 13
Further, the CA ruled that Hubilla's failure to contest the company-designated physician does not operate as a waiver acceptance of said findings. The appellate court also remarked that while hyperthyroidism is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) of the POEA-SEC states that "those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related"; and it is incumbent upon MOT-Barko to overcome this presumption. Unfortunately for MOT-Barko, the CA found that it failed to discharge this burden. Finally, the CA ruled that Hubilla is entitled to attorney's fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code. 14
Issues
The issue for Our resolution is whether Hubilla is entitled to permanent total disability benefits for his hyperthyroidism and the payment of attorney's fees.
Ruling of the Court
The Petition is without merit.
Contrary to MOT-Barko's position, Hubilla need not prove a causal connection between his work and the sickness he suffered before he could be entitled to permanent total disability benefits. "[W]ork-related illness" is defined as "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of [the 2010 POEA-SEC] with the conditions set therein satisfied." Corollarily, Section 20 (A) (4) thereof further provides that "[t]hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of [the 2010 POEA-SEC] are disputably presumed as work-related." Given the legal presumption in favor of the seafarer, he may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. Thus, the burden is on the employer, not the employee, to prove that the illness is not work-related. 15
In this case, MOT-Barko's designated physician merely stated in Hubilla's medical report that hyperthyroidism is an autoimmune disease and "not work-related." While it was explained that "[g]enetic factors seem to play an important role and various human leukocyte antigen alleles has been associated with the disease," 16 this does not conclusively establish that Hubilla's hyperthyroidism was due to genetics. To stress, the wording of the medical report does not limit the origin of the disease to genetics. Further, there are other risks factors for the disorder; two of the biggest lifestyle factors are chronic stress and poor eating habits. 17
At any rate, the CA and the labor tribunal are all consistent in their findings that Hubilla's illness is work-related. Stress was attributed to have caused or contributed to Hubilla's illness. Moreover, as observed by the CA, Hubilla, as an oiler, was constantly exposed to hazards such as chemicals and the varying temperatures, like the heat in the engine of the vessel.
We likewise find that Hubilla's illness has already attained a "permanent total disability" classification by the mere reason of MOT-Barko's failure to issue a final disability assessment. In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 18 the Court already clarified the rules governing the period for the company-designated physician to issue a final disability assessment, to wit:
In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules (rules) shall govern:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
It is mandatory for the company-designated physician to issue a final disability assessment within the 120/240-day period. Otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total. 19
Here, Hubilla was repatriated on 29 January 2014, giving MOT-Barko's company-designated physician until 29 May 2014 to give a final disability assessment but no such assessment was ever given. Nevertheless, MOT-Barko insists that on 10 March 2014, the company-designated issued a medical report stating that Hubilla's hyperthyroidism was "not work-related." This hardly suffices as the final disability assessment contemplated by law.
A final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment must clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work or the exact disability rating, or whether such illness is work-related, and without any further condition or treatment. 20 It should no longer require any further action on the part of the company-designated physician and it is issued by the company-designated physician after he or she has exhausted all possible treatment options within the periods allowed by law. 21 It should be so 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, or else the corresponding disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered. 22 Without such valid final and definitive assessment, the law already steps in to consider the seafarer's disability as total and permanent. 23
In Macahilas v. BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc., 24 the Court held that a medical assessment merely stating that an illness is not work-related cannot be considered as valid and final. Thus:
x x x In view of the foregoing, We cannot consider as valid and final an assessment merely stating that the illness of a seafarer is not work-related. Even with said assessment, the company-designated physician is bound to timely issue a fit to work assessment or disability grading. Here, the fitness assessment was issued 419 days after Macahilas's repatriation. Facts also show that Macahilas's illness was assessed as not work-related on the same day of his medical repatriation on January 17, 2014. Records show that Macahilas must still undergo further examination of his condition. He was even under the care of the company-designated physician thereafter and was subjected to a second surgical operation for hernia in view of the infection from his first surgery in Mexico. Clearly, the not-work-related assessment issued by BSM's physicians is arbitrary. (Emphasis supplied)
In a similar fashion, the medical report stating Hubilla's illness as not work-related lacked the required finality. There was no disability rating and further treatment options was provided for Hubilla. Also, by MOT Barko's own admission, Hubilla was continuously treated and evaluated despite the finding that his sickness was not work-related. To repeat, the legal consequence of MOT Barko's failure to issue a final disability assessment is Hubilla's entitlement to "permanent total disability" benefits.
Finally, We rule that Hubilla is entitled to attorney's fees. In several cases, the Court had repeatedly held that the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable in actions where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest. 25 Such justification is clear in this case as respondent was forced to retain the services of his counsel thereby incurring expenses as a result of petitioner's refusal to pay disability benefits. Thus, respondent is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award.
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. 26
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 22 January 2018 and Resolution dated 18 September 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146803 are AFFIRMED. Respondent Luis D. Hubilla is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits in the total amount of US$60,000.00 as well as attorney's fees at ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award granted.
Petitioner MOT-Barko Manila, Inc. is also ORDERED to pay interest on the monetary awards in favor of respondent Luis D. Hubilla at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum27 from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 281-294; Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court) of the Ninth (9th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. Id. at 296-297.
3. Id. at 325-335.
4. Id. at 336-337.
5. Id. at 282-284.
6. Id. at 262-263.
7. Id. at 263-264.
8. Id. at 284.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 284-285.
11. Id. at 285.
12. Id. at 293-294.
13. Id. at 286-293.
14. Id.
15. Salas v. Transmed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 247221, 15 June 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe]; Emphasis and underscoring in the original.
16. Rollo, p. 288.
17. See Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel, 707 Phil. 210 (2013), G.R. No. 195518, 20 March 2013 [Per J. Mendoza].
18. 765 Phil. 341 (2015), G.R. No. 211882, 29 July 2015 [Per J. Mendoza].
19. Pelagio v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 231773, 11 March 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
20. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 213874, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
21. Id.
22. Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. v. Atraje, 836 Phil. 1061 (2018), G.R. No. 229192, 23 July 2018 [Per J. Leonen].
23. Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 241674, 10 June 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
24. G.R. No. 237130, 01 July 2020 [Per J. Carandang].
25. Meco Manning & Crewing Services, Inc. v. Cuyos, G.R. No. 222939, 03 July 2019 [Per J. Reyes, Jr.].
26. Corpuz v. Gerwil Crewing Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 205725, 18 January 2021 [Per J. Gesmundo].
27. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].