SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218784. April 3, 2019.]
TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILS., INC., TEEKAY SHIPPING LTD. AND CRISPIN ZAGALA, petitioners, vs.RAFFY R. DIMAANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218784 — TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILS., INC., TEEKAY SHIPPING LTD. and CRISPIN ZAGALA, petitioners, versusRAFFY R. DIMAANO, respondent.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 28, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated June 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127430, which denied petitioners' petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Facts
The facts, as narrated by the CA, and quoting the Labor Arbiter's (LA) Decision 4 dated November 28, 2011, are as follows:
"On August 3, 2010, complainant was contracted as an Ordinary Seaman by Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc., for and in behalf of its principal Teekay Shipping Limited. On August 24, 2010, complainant joined his vessel MT Australian Spirit. On December 12, 2010, complainant complained of generalized abdominal pain and body weakness and was brought to Dr. G.B. Cross Memorial Hospital in Clarenville, Newfoundland, Canada. The Tomography Scan and Exploratory Laparotomy of complainant reveal[ed] that he was suffering from intestinal malrotation, a defect which involves the malformation of the intestinal tract. To alleviate the condition of complainant, a procedure called prophylactic appendectomy was conducted on complainant. On December 29, 2010, complainant's surgical staples were removed and he was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines. Upon repatriation, he was immediately referred by respondents to a Surgeon at the Metropolitan Medical Center for medical evaluation and treatment. As complainant's laboratory examinations showed that he had normal level of urea, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, with slightly elevated creatinine levels and, his urinalysis yielded normal results, he was advised to recuperate at home and continue his medications.
Based on all the medical procedures conducted on complainant, respondents['] Surgeon who attended complainant stated that his intestinal malrotation is congenital and considered not work-related.
On May 11, 2011, complainant filed this complaint." 5
In her Decision, the LA dismissed the complaint ruling that there was no dispute that respondent's intestinal malrotation was congenital. 6 And even if such illness is disputably presumed to be work-related, respondent failed to present evidence of the reasonable connection between his work and his intestinal malrotation. 7 CAIHTE
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a Decision 8 dated July 12, 2012 reversed the LA and ruled that since intestinal malrotation is disputably presumed to be work-related, it was incumbent on petitioners to prove that the illness was congenital, which petitioners failed to do. 9 The NLRC also awarded attorney's fees at 10% of the monetary award because respondent was constrained to engage the services of a counsel. 10
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. The CA affirmed the NLRC's Decision, ruling that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that petitioners failed to prove that respondent's intestinal malrotation was congenital and when it awarded attorney's fees. 11
Hence, this Petition. Despite notice, respondent, to date, has failed to file his comment on the Petition. The filing of the comment is therefore dispensed with.
Issue
Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the Decision of the NLRC.
The Court's Ruling
The Court affirms the CA that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits but on a different ground as will be discussed below.
The company-designated physician
A review of the records shows that respondent, by operation of law, was deemed to be totally and permanently disabled when the company-designated physician failed to issue a timely, final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment of respondent's fitness to work or the degree of his disability.
Under Article 198 (c) 12 of the Labor Code, temporary total disability lasting more than 120 days shall be deemed permanent total disability. Likewise, under Rule VII, Section 2 (b) of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation (AREC), "[a] disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days[.]"
The 2000 POEA-Standard Employment Contract 13 (2000 POEA-SEC) echoes this 120-day period when it states in Section 20.B (3) 14 that a seafarer's entitlement to sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days.
The 120-day period may, however, be extended to 240 days following Rule X, Section 2 (a) of the AREC, which states:
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.
Summarizing the foregoing, the Court held in Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp.15(Talaroc), citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 16 that:
In sum, the following guidelines are observed when a seafarer claims permanent and total disability benefits:
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 DETACa
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. 17
Here, respondent was repatriated on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the company-designated doctor issued a medical report, which states:
Laboratory examination showed decreased hemoglobin (127 g/L), hematocrit (0.36), normal blood urea nitrogen, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, slightly elevated creatinine and normal urinalysis.
He was advised to recuperate at home and to continue his medication (Tramacet) for pain as needed.
His condition is congenital in nature and not considered work-related.
He is to come back on January 20, 2011 for re-evaluation. 18 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In a medical report dated January 20, 2011, the company-designated doctor stated that:
There is note of healing post-op wound.
He was advised to recuperate at home.
He is for repeat complete blood count, blood urea nitrogen and creatinine on his next follow-up for treatment monitoring.
He is to come back on February 2, 2011 for re-evaluation. 19 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Subsequently, the company-designated physician issued a medical report on February 2, 2011, which states:
On follow-up, patient has no complaints of abdominal pain nor vomiting. He had regular bowel movement.
xxx xxx xxx
Repeat laboratory examination showed normal complete blood count, creatinine and uric acid.
He was advised to increase oral fluid intake.
He is to come back on February 16, 2011 for re-evaluation. 20 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Curiously, the February 16, 2011 medical report, if there was one, was not submitted.
Respondent then filed the complaint before the LA on May 11, 2011. 21 Thereafter, petitioners referred respondent's medical status to a gastroenterologist who issued a certification dated June 11, 2011, which states:
With regards (sic) to the case of Mr. DIMAANO, the Ex-Lap finding speaks for itself. Patients with congenital intestinal malrotation are prone to obstruction and to bands and volvulus. It's just an accident waiting to happen and is in no way work[-]related. 22 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The foregoing shows that the company-designated physician failed to issue a final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment of respondent's fitness to work or degree of disability within 120 days from respondent's repatriation.
For the medical assessment to be deemed final, conclusive, and definite, it must clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work or the exact disability rating, and without any further condition or treatment. A final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment should no longer require any further action on the part of the company-designated physician. And for all intents and purposes, the timely, final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment is issued by the company-designated physician after he or she has exhausted all possible treatment options within the periods allowed by law.
Here, since respondent was repatriated on December 29, 2010, the company-designated physician had 120 days from that date, or until April 27, 2011, to issue a timely, final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment. Although the company-designated physician stated in the January 6, 2011 medical report that respondent's intestinal malrotation was congenital and not work-related, respondent was still required to return for re-evaluation, which he did on January 20, 2011, February 2, 2011, and probably also on February 16, 2011. The foregoing shows that the January 6, 2011 medical report, which stated that respondent's illness was congenital, was merely interim. It cannot be considered the final, conclusive, and definite assessment because the company-designated doctor still conducted a re-evaluation on three more dates, and after these re-evaluations, no final, conclusive, and definite assessment was still issued. 23 aDSIHc
Further, by the time the June 11, 2011 certification was issued, respondent was already deemed entitled to total and permanent disability benefits since it was issued beyond the 120-day period. Petitioners failed to show that respondent needed further medical treatment after the 120-day period in order to extend the treatment to 240 days. As the Court ruled in Talaroc, there must be sufficient justification to extend the treatment to 240 days, and it is the employer that has the burden of proving the existence and the sufficiency of the justification. 24
Given the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a timely, final, conclusive, and definite assessment of respondent's fitness to work or disability rating, respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefit 25 in the amount of US$60,000.00.
Work-relatedness is not the same as
The Court, however, finds that both the NLRC and the CA were in error when they ruled that since intestinal malrotation is disputably presumed to be work-related, petitioners had the burden of proving that the illness was congenital. In other words, for both the NLRC and CA, the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness also meant that it was disputably presumed to be compensable, and it was petitioners' burden to prove otherwise.
The Court has ruled in Romana v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp.26 that "[t]he established work-relatedness of an illness does not, however, mean that the resulting disability is automatically compensable. As also discussed, the seafarer, while not needing to prove the work-relatedness of his illness, bears the burden of proving compliance with the conditions of compensability under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his claim." 27
Following Section 20.B (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, since intestinal malrotation is not listed in Section 32 of the 2000 POEA-SEC, such illness is disputably presumed as work-related. This, however, does not automatically mean that respondent's illness is already compensable. Respondent still had the burden of proving that his illness was compensable following Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, which enumerates four conditions, all of which must be satisfied, for an occupational disease to be compensable:
(1) The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
(2) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
(3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;
(4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Nonetheless, as discussed above, respondent no longer needed to prove the compensability of his illness as he is deemed, under the established facts, and on the basis of current jurisprudence, already entitled to total and permanent disability benefit upon the lapse of 120 days from repatriation without having been declared fit for work or given a disability rating.
Finally, the CA and the NLRC were correct in awarding attorney's fees to respondent at 10% of the total monetary awards following Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, "which allows its recovery in actions for recovery of wages of laborers and actions for indemnity under the employer's liability laws." 28
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The monetary awards as affirmed in the Decision dated November 28, 2014 and Resolution dated June 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127430 are AFFIRMED.
Petitioners are likewise liable for legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum of the monetary awards computed from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-34.
2.Id. at 36-44. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
3.Id. at 46-47. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
4.Id. at 190-196. Penned by Labor Arbiter Michelle P. Pagtalunan.
5.Id. at 37-38.
6.Id. at 194, 196.
7.Id. at 194.
8.Id. at 211-218.
9. See id. at 215-216, 218.
10.Id. at 218.
11.Id. at 42-43.
12. ART. 198 [192]. Permanent Total Disability. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(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 for in the Rules;
xxx xxx xxx
13. AMENDED STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO SEAFARERS ON BOARD OCEAN-GOING VESSELS.
14. SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
B. 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
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
15. G.R. No. 223731, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 402.
16. 765 Phil. 341, 362-363 (2015).
17. Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp., supra note 15, at 417.
18. Rollo, p. 81.
19. Id. at 82.
20. Id. at 83.
21. Id. at 191.
22. Id. at 84.
23. See Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., 806 Phil. 505, 518 (2017) and Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., 758 Phil. 166, 183-184 (2015).
24. Supra note 15, at 416-417.
25. Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., supra note 23, at 184, citing Libang, Jr. v. Indochina Ship Management, Inc., 743 Phil. 286, 300 (2014).
26. G.R. No. 192442, August 9, 2017, 836 SCRA 151.
27. Id. at 168.
28. See Nazareno v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc., 704 Phil. 625, 639 (2013).