Villanueva v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246695. September 14, 2021.]

JULIUS CLAN S. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs.TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. AND MARIN SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD. AND/OR MICHAEL J. ESTANIEL, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246695 — JULIUS CLAN S. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, versusTRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. AND MARIN SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD. AND/OR MICHAEL J. ESTANIEL, respondents.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA), Third Division's Decision 2 dated January 24, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated April 17, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 156035. The CA affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Decision, 4 which ruled that petitioner is entitled to disability compensation of ten percent of US$125,000.00 or US$12,500.00 following the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF)-Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

The issue raised before the Court is whether the CA correctly affirmed the NLRC's award of partial disability benefits. As the CA summarized the admissions of the parties and the issue raised before it:

It is worth noting that there is no issue as to the compensability of petitioner's disability since the parties do not dispute that it is work-related. There is also no dispute that petitioner's employment contract with private respondents is covered by the ITF-CBA. What remains to be resolved is whether petitioner is entitled to the payment of permanent total disability benefits or to partial disability benefits x x x. 5

To resolve the issue of whether the CA correctly affirmed the NLRC's grant of partial disability benefits, the Court must necessarily look at the final medical assessment of the company-designated doctor. DHITCc

Here, contrary to the findings of the CA that the final medical assessment issued by the company-designated physician was the January 26, 2016 Medical Report, 6 both parties are in agreement 7 that the final medical assessment that was issued by the company-designated physician was the March 15, 2016 assessment, where the company-designated physician maintained the Grade 11 disability rating and added the following:

["]x x x complains of pain on the right ankle. He requires regular physical therapy sessions in order to restore the mobility and range of motion of the right leg. He needs to be seen by a physiatrist and orthopedic surgeon after completing one more month of physical therapy for reevaluation. Thus, he CANNOT BE, AT THE MOMENT, DECLARED FIT FOR WORK OR SEA DUTY." 8 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

Petitioner argues that the March 15, 2016 medical assessment was issued beyond 240 days from his medical repatriation, and he should be considered entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. 9

On the other hand, respondents argue that petitioner abandoned his treatment when he failed to attend physical therapy sessions after the issuance of the March 15, 2016 medical assessment. 10 Petitioner should therefore only be entitled to partial disability benefit as found by the company-designated physician. 11

The Court agrees with petitioner.

It is settled that the company-designated physician must issue a final and definite disability assessment within 120 or 240 days from the date of the seafarer's repatriation. 12

Here, petitioner was repatriated on June 12, 2015, while the final medical assessment was issued on March 15, 2016. Thus, the final medical assessment of the company-designated physician was issued 277 days from June 12, 2015, which is more than the 240-day period provided by law within which the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment.

As the Court held in Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services: 13 "The duty of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive assessment of the seafarer's disability within the prescribed periods is imperative. His failure to do so will render his findings nugatory and transform the disability suffered by the seafarer to one that is permanent and total." 14

To be sure, the March 15, 2016 medical assessment was not even a final and definite assessment. It clearly stated that petitioner should still return for medical evaluation. As the Court held in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol: 15

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. 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. 16

The duty of the company-designated physician is clear and settled. Given that it is beyond dispute that petitioner's injuries were work-related, the company-designated physician had 120 or 240 days to issue a final and definite disability rating. Although the March 15, 2016 medical assessment stated a Grade 11 disability rating, it also said that petitioner needed to see a physiatrist and orthopedic surgeon after completing one more month of physical therapy for re-evaluation. Thus, the Grade 11 rating was an interim and not a final assessment as the company-designated physician had not yet exhausted all possible treatment options and even directed that further treatment be done. The doctor even specified that petitioner was for re-evaluation after further treatment and physical therapy and that petitioner cannot be declared fit for work or sea duty. Given this, petitioner is deemed entitled to total and permanent disability benefits by operation of law. cEaSHC

Given the foregoing, respondents' argument that petitioner abandoned his treatment after the March 15, 2016 assessment becomes irrelevant and inconsequential because, as stated above, by operation of law, petitioner is already deemed entitled to total and permanent disability benefits when the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definite assessment within the 240-day period from petitioner's medical repatriation. In fact, this argument of respondents is even an admission that the March 15, 2016 assessment was not final and definite as it admits that after the issuance of the March 15, 2016 assessment and despite the lapse of more than 240 days from petitioner's medical repatriation, petitioner was still expected to return for further treatment.

Petitioner is therefore deemed entitled to total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$125,000.00 following the ITF-CBA, which the parties agree is applicable herein. 17

Petitioner is also entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards following Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The monetary awards shall also earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum counted from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 24, 2019 and the Resolution dated April 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals, Third Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 156035 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are directed to pay petitioner the following:

a. total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$125,000.00; and

b. attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the judgment award, or US$12,500.00.

The amounts quoted in US Dollars shall be paid in their equivalent Philippine currency at the time of payment.

The foregoing shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

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. 3-34, excluding Annexes.

2.Id. at 36-51. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (both now Members of the Court), concurring.

3.Id. at 53-54.

4. CA rollo, pp. 33-49. Decision dated January 4, 2018 in NLRC LAC No. 08-000489-17; penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto while Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles filed a Dissenting Opinion, id. at 50-52.

5.Rollo, p. 44.

6. See id. at 48.

7. See id. at 8 and 76.

8.Id. at 9.

9.Id. at 14-15.

10.Id. at 76-77.

11.Id. at 84-85.

12.Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services, G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13665/>.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 11.

15. G.R. No. 213874, June 19, 2019, 905 SCRA 112.

16.Id. at 121.

17. See rollo, pp. 24, 49-50.