FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232586. July 6, 2021.]
BIENVENIDO B. QUIJANO, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232586 (Bienvenido B. Quijano, Petitioner, v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Respondent.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (petition) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 27 February 2017 and Resolution 3 dated 30 June 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130184 4 granting respondent Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.'s 5 (respondent) petition for review.
Antecedents
On 28 January 2011, Bienvenido B. Quijano (petitioner) entered into a contract with respondent, which was acting on behalf of its foreign principal, Riga Ship Management SIA, to serve as Ordinary Seaman in the latter's vessel, M/V Hanseatic Spirit. Petitioner was deployed on 10 February 2011 for a contract period of nine (9) months, with a basic monthly salary of US$516.00. On 11 April 2011, petitioner accidentally lost his balance and fell from a height of about four (4) meters, with the right side of his body hitting the railings. He was immediately rushed to a hospital in Sweden. Upon examination, it was revealed that he sustained multiple fractures on his right ribs. He was, thereafter, medically repatriated on 15 April 2011. 6
Upon his return to the country, petitioner was referred to the Marine Medical Services (Metropolitan Medical Center) (company-designated physician). An x-ray conducted on his thoracic cage confirmed that petitioner had multiple fractures on the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th right anterior ribs. Petitioner was endorsed to Dr. Lynn Larena-Olegario, a physiatrist, at the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital in whose care petitioner remained from 09 May to 26 September 2011. On 26 September 2011, petitioner undertook to return to the company-designated physician for re-evaluation on 17 October 2011, but never did. 7
Instead, on 25 November 2011, petitioner filed before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice to Arbitrate on his claims for disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees against respondent. However, despite several conciliation conferences, no settlement was reached between the parties. Hence, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) was constituted. 8
On 07 February 2012, petitioner consulted his personal physician, Dr. Renato P. Runas, an orthopedic specialist, who declared him "no longer fit to work as a seaman with a partial permanent disability equivalent to Grade 9." 9 Moreover, during the pendency of the case before the PVA, or on 27 March 2012, an x-ray examination of petitioner's thoracic cage revealed that previously noted fractures are no longer evident. 10 The following day, 28 March 2012, or 346 days from the time of repatriation, Dr. Charles R. Cabuquit, an orthopedic surgeon and respondent's orthopedic specialist, re-evaluated petitioner. In his letter 11 to the company-designated physician, he stated, among others, that petitioner's "functional range of motion of his right shoulder has been achieved. This allows the patient to perform his functions as if normal." He likewise assessed petitioner's disability grading as Grade 12.
Ruling of the PVA
In its Decision 12 dated 21 January 2013, the PVA ruled that petitioner was entitled to disability benefits pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The PVA ratiocinated that despite physiotherapy, petitioner was not restored to his pre-employment health status. Further, respondent failed to prove its claim that petitioner abandoned his treatment. 13 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premised on the above discussion, a decision is hereby rendered ORDERING herein respondents PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. and RIGA SHIP MANAGEMENT SIA, to jointly and severally pay complainant Bienvenido B. Quijano, the amount of One Twenty-Five Thousand US Dollars (US[$]125,000.00]) as disability benefits, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment plus ten percent thereon as attorney's fees.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 14
Dissatisfied with the ruling, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the PVA denied in its Resolution 15 dated 24 April 2013. Respondent, thereafter, sought relief from the CA. 16
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 17 dated 27 February 2017, the CA reversed and set aside the assailed decision and resolution of the PVA for the following reasons: (a) petitioner abandoned his treatment, which resulted in the company-designated physician's failure to make a disability assessment or a fit-to-work declaration and (b) the assessment of petitioner's personal physician was unreliable since it was arrived at after only a single assessment of petitioner's condition and was based on an x-ray done on 19 April 2011, or some ten (10) months earlier. 18
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its Resolution 19 dated 30 June 2017. Hence, the filing of the instant petition before this Court.
Issue
The primary issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the petition bereft of merit.
Petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits should be denied because he committed medical abandonment. 20 He explains that his failure to return was because he had to travel a long way from Cebu to Manila, which would have entailed expenses for his plane fare, food, and accommodation. Since he had been unemployed since his repatriation on 15 April 2011, he was without a source of income to shoulder the expenses. Moreover, the reason for his appointment with the company-designated physician was for re-evaluation only and not for medication, therapy, or surgery. 21
In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 22 the Court summarized the rules governing claims for permanent total disability benefits, as follows:
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.
Medical abandonment is committed when a seafarer fails to complete his treatment before the lapse of the 240-day period, which prevents the company-designated physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his disability. 23
Section 20 (D) of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract 24 (POEA-SEC) provides that "[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, x x x." Hence, a seafarer is duty-bound to complete his medical treatment until he is declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability rating by the company-designated physician. 25
Petitioner had been under the care of the company-designated doctor since his repatriation on 15 April 2011. He was given medication and underwent physical therapy, the last being conducted on 26 September 2011, the 164th day. While this was beyond the 120-day period, there was cause for the extension of petitioner's treatment, as he was still experiencing "pain on the right costal area with pain scale of 4/10 especially when side-lying on the right and occasional pain on the right cervical area during cold weather." 26 After his last session, petitioner agreed to return on 17 October 2011 27 for his re-evaluation, but he failed to do so.
Petitioner's explanation that he could not afford the plane fare and other incidental expenses in traveling to Manila is unacceptable. For one, he had been reporting for medical check-ups in Manila until he failed to do so despite his commitment to return for re-evaluation on 17 October 2011. There was no indication as well that he notified the company of his inability to return for re-evaluation, or that he asked for the same to be rescheduled. For another, petitioner failed to show that respondent was remiss in its obligation to pay for petitioner's medical, travel, and accommodation expenses, in accordance with Section 20 (A) (2) and (3) 28 of the POEA-SEC. Petitioner could have even raised it as an issue in his position paper submitted before the PVA. When he stipulated it as a claim in the Submission Agreement, the PVA considered its inclusion as a mistake since petitioner did not seek or mention it in his position paper. 29 Finally, if petitioner really did not intend to abandon his medical treatment, he could have informed respondent of his financial constraint at that time and made arrangements to see the company-designated physician when he was able. Yet, he did not do so.
Noteworthy, too, is that even as petitioner raised his financial constraints as an excuse not to report to the company-designated physician, he was able to consult a physician whose clinics are in Luzon30(Manila, Quezon City, Marikina, and San Mateo, Rizal) rather than one whose clinic is in Cebu.
In addition, it is of no moment that he was required to report to the company-designated physician merely for a re-evaluation. It is the obligation of a seafarer to report regularly to the company-designated physician during the course of his treatment. 31
Petitioner's action unmistakably constitutes medical abandonment. When he failed to show up for his re-evaluation on 17 October 2011, petitioner prevented the company-designated physician from making a fitness or disability assessment. It is all too clear that petitioner breached his duty under the POEA-SEC. Without any final assessment from the company-designated physician, petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits must fail. 32
Section 20 (A) (3) 33 of the POEA-SEC provides that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer's disability. The same provision also provides for a procedure to contest the company-designated physician's findings. 34 Petitioner, however, failed to comply with the procedure when he filed his claim for permanent total disability benefits on 25 November 2011, when only 224 days have lapsed and despite the absence of a final assessment, as he was still undergoing treatment. Considering that the 240-day period had not yet lapsed and the company-designated physician still had the remaining period within which to give his definitive assessment on petitioner's medical condition or the fitness to return to work, petitioner's cause of action had not yet accrued. 35 As such, the PVA should have dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of cause of action.
Notably, petitioner had not yet consulted with his personal physician when he filed his complaint. It was only two (2) months after that he sought the opinion of his personal physician. The medical report issued by petitioner's personal physician, thus, cannot be given credence since it did not give petitioner the necessary cause of action he lacked when he filed the complaint. Indeed, while a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors under Section 20 (A) (3) of the POEA-SEC, such right may be availed of on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a definite declaration on the condition of the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it disagreeable. Without the company-designated doctor's certification, petitioner cannot rely on the assessment made by his personal physician. 36
Petitioner's failure to observe the procedure under the POEA-SEC provided sufficient ground for the denial of his claim for permanent total disability benefits. Considering, however, that he was still under treatment by the company-designated physician even after the lapse of 120 days but within the 240-day extended period allowed by the rules, he remained to be under temporary total disability and entitled to temporary total disability benefits under the same rules. 37
Since it is undisputed that petitioner still needed medical treatment beyond the initial 120 days from his repatriation, he is entitled to the income benefit for temporary total disability provided under Section 2 (a), 38 Rule X of the Rules Implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code. 39 This is computed from petitioner's repatriation on 15 April 2011 until 26 September 2011 when he last visited the company-designated physician. 40
In several cases, this Court has granted financial assistance to separated employees for humanitarian considerations, as a measure of social and compassionate justice for the working class and as an equitable concession. 41 Thus, the award of financial assistance is essentially subject to the sound discretion of the courts. 42 Taking into consideration that while petitioner was on duty, he fell from a height of four (4) meters to the ground, and the fact that he has devoted his efforts as seafarer to further respondent's endeavors, the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to financial assistance in the amount of US$13,062.05. This corresponds to the Grade 12 rating given by the company-designated physician upon petitioner's re-evaluation, and as offered by respondents, during the pendency of the case before the PVA.
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed upon the monetary award granted in favor of petitioner from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. 43
In its Memorandum, respondent asked that an order be issued requiring petitioner to return the judgment award paid to him by virtue of execution proceedings that he had initiated. 44 As the same is unsubstantiated, We deem it best not to discuss the matter.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 27 February 2017 and Resolution dated 30 June 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130184 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., is ORDERED to PAY petitioner Bienvenido B. Quijano income benefit for one hundred sixty-four (164) days as well as the amount of US$13,062.05 as financial assistance. The amounts awarded shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
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. 9-28.
2.Id. at 220-230; Penned by CA Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
3.Id. at 240-242.
4. CA-G.R. SP No. 130184 was consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 128665 pursuant to the resolution of the CA dated 17 August 2015. In CA-G.R. SP No. 128665, respondent argued that the PVA, in its Resolution dated 30 October 2012, committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the former's motion for the inhibition of Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator (AVA) Allan S. Montaño as a member of the PVA. The CA, in the assailed Decision, affirmed the ruling of the PVA on this matter. (Rollo, pp. 224-225 and 239.)
5. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc. in some parts of the record.
6.Rollo, pp. 29, 53, 149, 222.
7.Id. at 54, 56-57, 59, 63, 67-69, 222-223, 237.
8.Id. at 12, 223.
9.Id. at 70, 223.
10.Id. at 127.
11.Id. at 125.
12.Id. at 148-164; Signed by AVA Buenaventura C. Magsalin and AVA Allan S. Montaño with AVA Gregorio B. Sialsa, dissenting.
13.Id. at 158.
14.Id. at 164.
15.See Rollo, p. 225.
16.See Rollo, p. 221.
17.Rollo, pp. 220-230.
18.Id. at 70, 237-238.
19.Id. at 240-242.
20.Lerona v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 210955, 14 August 2019 [Per J. Jardeleza].
21.Rollo, p. 17.
22. G.R. No. 211882, 29 July 2015 [Per J. Mendoza] cited in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 213874, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
23.C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta, 818 Phil. 710 (2017), G.R. No. 211111, 25 September 2017 [Per J. del Castillo] cited in Maunlad Trans, Inc. v. Rodelas, Jr., G.R. No. 225705, 01 April 2019 [Per J. del Castillo].
24. Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships.
25.Lerona v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 210955, 14 August 2019 [Per J. Jardeleza].
26.Rollo, p. 124.
27.Id. at 68-69.
28. 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
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.
The seafarer shall be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of medicines prescribed by the company-designated physician. In case treatment of the seafarer is on an out-patient basis as determined by the company-designated physician, the company shall approve the appropriate mode of transportation and accommodation. The reasonable cost of actual traveling expenses and/or accommodation shall be paid subject to liquidation and submission of official receipts and/or proof of expenses.
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. [Emphasis supplied.]
29.Rollo, p. 163.
30.Id. at 71.
31. Section 20 (A) (3) of the POEA-SEC; Manila Shipmanagement & Manning, Inc. v. Aninang, G.R. No. 217135, 31 January 2018 [Per J. Reyes, Jr.]; Antolino v. Hanseatic Shipping Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 245917, 26 February 2020 [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr.].
32.Lerona v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 210955, 14 August 2019 [Per J. Jardeleza].
33.Rollo, p. 124.
34.Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Hernandez, Jr., G.R. No. 211187, 16 April 2018 [Per J. del Castillo).
35.Guadalquiver v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprise, Inc., G.R. No. 226200, 05 August 2019 [Per J. Inting].
36.Id.
37.New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, 747 Phil. 626 (2014), G.R. No. 209201, 19 November 2014 [Per J. Mendoza].
38. Rule X
Temporary Total Disability
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 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.
39. Otherwise known as the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.
40.See Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 711 Phil. 614 (2013), G.R. No. 191903, 19 June 2013 [Per J. Brion]; New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, 747 Phil. 626 (2014), G.R. No. 209201, 19 November 2014 [Per J. Mendoza]; Gargallo v. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc., 769 Phil. 915 (2015), G.R. No. 215551, 16 September 2015 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
41.Loadstar International Shipping, Inc. v. Yamson, G.R. No. 228470, 23 April 2018 [Per J. Peralta] where the amount of Php75,000.00 was awarded as financial assistance; Heirs of Pajares v. North Sea Marine Services Corp.,G.R. No. 244437, 14 September 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos] where the amount of US$8,500.00 was awarded; Maryville Manila, Inc. v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 229372, 27 August 2020 [Per J. Lopez] where the amount of Php100,000.00 was awarded as financial assistance.
42.Heirs of Pajares v. North Sea Marine Services Corp., G.R. No. 244437, 14 September 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos].
43.Skyway O & M Corp. v. Reinante, G.R. No. 222233, 28 August 2019 [Per J. Inting].
44.Rollo, p. 313.