Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Mateo
This is a civil case between Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. and Juanito V. Mateo. The legal issue in this case is whether an employee is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits when the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment of the employee's fitness to work within the 120/240-day treatment period. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the employee is entitled to such benefits. The Court also ruled that the employee is entitled to attorney's fees as he was compelled to litigate to protect his interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243258. January 7, 2019.]
TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,vs. JUANITO V. MATEO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243258 (Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Juanito V. Mateo)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 23, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 30, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151123 for failure of petitioner Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that respondent Juanito V. Mateo (respondent) is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$89,100.00 and ten percent (10%) attorney's fees.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent's work-related injury is deemed total and permanent by operation of law when the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a final assessment of respondent's fitness to work within the 120/240-day treatment period following his repatriation on November 25, 2015. 4 Moreover, the company-designated physician's issuance of an Interim Disability Grade 11 is a mere initial determination of petitioner's condition for the time being and therefore cannot be considered as a definite prognosis. 5 Hence, the award of US$89,100.00 to respondent pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Philippine Seafarers Union, 6 which covered respondent's employment contract, 7 must be sustained. In this regard, the CA cannot be faulted in sustaining the award of attorney's fees as respondent was clearly compelled to litigate to protect his interest. 8
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-26.
2.Id. at 36-45. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring.
3.Id. at 32-34.
4.Tamin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, 794 Phil. 286, 301 (2016). See also rollo, pp. 43-44.
5. See Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018.
6.Rollo, pp. 248-314.
7. See id. at 268.
8. Pertinent portions of Article 2208 of the CIVIL CODE provides:
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
xxx xxx xxx
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability law[.]
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU