SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232005. December 2, 2020.]
NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES, INC. and/or V-SHIPS LEISURE LTD./SILVERSEA CRUISES LTD., petitioners,vs. BOBBY N. VILLARUZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 December 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232005 (North Sea Marine Services, Inc. and/or V-Ships Leisure Ltd./Silversea Cruises Ltd. v. Bobby N. Villaruz).
Petitioners raised a question regarding the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board's (NCMB) appreciation of the evidence on whether respondent's illness is compensable which is one of fact 1 and is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the CA and the labor tribunal speak as one in their findings and conclusions. 2 While it is widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions, none exist in the instant case. 3 At any rate, even if this Court decides the issue, the petition would still be denied.
Petitioners did not question respondent's entitlement to the award of sickness allowance. Nevertheless, petitioners assert that respondent is not entitled to any compensation as his illness is neither work-related, nor work-aggravated, and is not among those occupational diseases listed in Section (Sec.) 32-A of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). However, petitioners failed to recognize that while not specifically listed as an occupational disease, cholecystolithiasis and nephrolithiasis, nonetheless falls under the category: "Severe residuals of impairment of intra-abdominal organs which requires regular aid and attendance that will unable worker to seek any gainful employment" which is classified as Grade 1 disability under Sec. 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC. 4 Also, Sec. 20 (A) (4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC states that: "[t]hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related." This means that the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption, which petitioners failed to discharge in this case. 5
Moreover, a seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits for work rendered overseas is a matter governed not only by medical findings, but also by Philippine law, particularly Sec. 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which is deemed incorporated in every seafarer's contract of employment. 6 Sec. 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides for the procedure as to how the seafarer can legally demand and claim disability benefits from the employer/manning agency for an injury or illness suffered:
SEC. 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
2. x x x However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, 7 the Court explained the rules on the 120-day and 240-day periods for medical treatment on permanent and total disability in this manner:
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. 8
Total disability means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that he or she was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his or her mentality and attainments could do. 9 On the other hand, permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his or her job for more than 120 days, 10 or up to a maximum 240 days, as provided in Sec. 2, Rule X 11 of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, implementing Book IV of the Labor Code. The disability is classified as permanent regardless of whether or not a worker loses the use of any part of his or her body. 12
Here, during the term of his contract, respondent was diagnosed to be suffering from cholecystolithiasis (gallstones) and nephrolithiasis (kidney stones). The respondent was medically repatriated on August 25, 2014 and he immediately reported to the company-designated physician on August 26, 2014. Respondent underwent surgery on August 30, 2014. Upon being discharged from the hospital, respondent went to the company-designated physician, Dr. Fidel Chua (Dr. Chua) for several medical consultations. On October 2, 2014, Dr. Chua noted the evaluation of the surgeon, Dr. Benito Tan (Dr. Tan), that respondent's wound has healed — but has no fit to work certification was issued. Respondent was scheduled for another evaluation on October 16, 2014, and this is well within the 120-day period counted from repatriation.
On October 16, 2014, respondent came back for his check up and Dr. Chua told him that he is already well. Still, no fit to work certification was issued. Respondent informed Dr. Chua that he is still in pain, but the doctor cursed at him and shouted for him to go back to his surgeon. Respondent went to the surgeon, Dr. Tan, but the latter was on vacation abroad. Upon inquiry with petitioner North Sea Marine Services, Inc.'s office, the administrative supervisor for medical cases told him that he will be assessed as fit to work, but he was not given any certificate. The respondent was also informed that he will only receive his sickness allowance once he signs the fit to work certificate that is yet to be issued. 13
On the other hand, petitioners argue that respondent abandoned his medical treatment when he failed to come back on October 16, 2014 for his scheduled reevaluation by the company-designated physician, 14 as per the Medical Report dated December 3, 2014. 15
We are not convinced.
The Medical Report presented by petitioners stating that respondent failed to come back on October 16, 2014, was only issued on December 3, 2014. This is highly suspect because it is on record that respondent already commenced the grievance procedure before the Associated Marine Officers' and Seaman's Union of the Philippines on November 25, 2014. This means that when petitioners belatedly issued their Medical Report dated December 3, 2014, they were already aware that the respondent consulted with another physician, Dr. Rommel Galvez, on November 19, 2014, which was the basis for the then on-going grievance proceedings. However, the grievance proceedings resulted a deadlock and was terminated on January 30, 2015. 16 Yet, despite this and the lapse of the mandated 120-day period, which expired on December 23, 2014, no definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness or disability was issued by petitioners — not even when respondent commenced the arbitration proceedings with the NCMB on February 13, 2015. The late issuance of a Medical Report on December 3, 2014, instead on the day of the scheduled October 16, 2014 check-up, is a clear attempt to cover up petitioners' refusal to give further medical attention to respondent's condition.
As to the alleged abandonment of medical treatment, jurisprudence states that as between respondent's claim that his request for medical examination and further treatment was rejected, and petitioners' bare denial, the seafarer's positive assertion is generally entitled to more weight. 17 It is simply unthinkable that a seafarer, who had consistently and eagerly sought cure for his illness would simply abandon his medical treatment. Also, the record shows that respondent consulted with two other doctors as he was still in pain despite the surgery. The Court will not allow petitioners to shift the blame for its inadvertence, or deliberate refusal to issue a definite assessment, to defeat the seafarer's claim. This is especially true where the NCMB and the CA made a factual determination that the daily duties performed by respondent, the conditions on board the vessel, not to mention the physical and emotional stress he was under while working for petitioners for eleven straight years contributed to, or aggravated his illness. True enough, respondent experienced symptoms while on board the vessel, and the fact that he was repatriated means that his illness is serious and required medical intervention. To stress, the factual findings of the NCMB's panel of arbitrators, which were affirmed by the CA, are binding and will not be disturbed, absent any showing that they were made arbitrarily or were unsupported by substantial evidence. 18
As jurisprudence dictates, without a valid, final, and definitive assessment from the company-designated physician to declare whether a seafarer is fit to work or permanently disabled, whether total or permanent, within the 120/240-day periods, the law steps in to consider the seafarer's disability as total and permanent. 19 This remains regardless of whether the seafarer loses the use of any part of his body, or if the injury, or disability is classified as Grade 1 under the POEA-SEC. 20 Relative to this, the provision on disability in the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, clearly states that it applies to "permanent disability while in service on board the ship, or while travelling to or from the ship, as a result of an accident, regardless of fault, x x x." 21 Given that respondent's disability was due to an illness, we sustain the CA's ruling that the respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability compensation in the amount of US$60,000.00 (US$50,000.00 x 120%) stated under Schedule of Disability Allowances found in Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC, 22 and not the US$90,000.00 indicated in the CBA. Likewise, the respondent is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Art. 2208 (8) 23 of the Civil Code as he was compelled to litigate to recover total and permanent disability compensation. The total monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. 24
In cases involving medical repatriation, maritime companies should consider that the payment of sickness allowance and the adequate medical treatment of the seafarers are significant as these are meant to aid seafarers whose incomes are cut short because of an event beyond their control. The Court will not tolerate employers like petitioners who give seafarers the run-around and refuse to strictly comply with their contractual obligations, under the pretense that the seafarers abandoned their medical treatment. 25
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Decision 26 dated February 21, 2017 and Resolution 27 dated May 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145474 are AFFIRMED with modification that the total monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave. Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020).
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See OSG Ship Management Manila, Inc. v. Monje, 820 Phil. 142, 151-152 (2017).
2. See Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 266-267 (2017); Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 178-179 (2017); and Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, 596 Phil. 858, 865 (2009).
3. The recognized exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court; (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. See Navaja v. Hon. De Castro, 761 Phil. 142, 155 (2015).
4. Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10 dated October 26, 2010.
5.Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. v. Quijano, G.R. No. 234346, August 14, 2019.
6.Id.
7. 765 Phil. 341 (2015); and Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services, G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020.
8.Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, id. at 362-363.
9.Hanseatic Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Ballon, 769 Phil. 567, 584 (2015).
10. LABOR CODE, Art. 192 (c) (1).
ART. 192. Permanent Total Disability. —
(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:
(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided in the Rules[.]
11. SEC. 2. Period of entitlement. — (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.
12. See Hanseatic Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Ballon, supra note 9, at 583-584.
13.Rollo, pp. 179-189, Complainant's Position Paper.
14.Id. at pp. 52-56, Petition for Review dated July 21, 2017.
15.Id. at 177.
16.Id. at 316.
17. See Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. v. Quijano, supra note 5.
18.Supra.
19.Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018.
20.Philsynergy Maritime, Inc. and/or Trimurti Shipmanagement Ltd. v. Gallano, 832 Phil. 922 (2018); See also Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717, 736-737 (2013).
21.Rollo, p. 303; Section 25.1 of the CBA.
22.Eyana v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 752 Phil. 232, 252 (2015).
23. ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws[.]
xxx xxx xxx.
24.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 280-281 (2013).
25. See Cariño v. Maine Marine Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 231111, October 17, 2018.
26.Rollo, pp. 14-30; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
27.Id. at 32-33.