FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239740. January 8, 2020.]
WILHELMSEN-SMITHBELL MANNING, INC. AND/OR WILHELMSEN SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD., petitioners, vs.JOVITO A. ALEMAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 8, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239740 — WILHELMSEN-SMITHBELL MANNING, INC. AND/OR WILHELMSEN SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD., petitioners, versus JOVITO A. ALEMAN, respondent.
Petitioners, in invoking Article 12 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), urge the Court to disregard the number of days that respondent Jovito A. Aleman (Aleman) was rendered incapacitated to work in determining the nature of his disability and the corresponding benefits due to him, and instead give credence on the disability rating issued by the company-designated physician. Petitioners stress that the parties are bound by the CBA, which should therefore be given full force and effect. 1 HTcADC
It is true that the CBA constitutes the law between the parties. However, as with any other contract, the CBA is subject to Article 1306 of the Civil Code. 2 Thus, the 120-day and 240-day rule is still equally applicable in determining the nature of the disability of, and corresponding benefit due Aleman. In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr.,3(Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc.) the Court explained the rules governing a claim for total and permanent disability benefits, viz.:
In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules (rules) shall govern:
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. 4
Based on the pronouncement in Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc., the following requirements must concur for the determination of the seafarer's condition: (1) an assessment must be issued within the 120/240-day window; and (2) the assessment must be final and definitive. 5
Here, while the May 4, 2015 Medical Report of Dr. Esther Go (Dr. Go) was issued within the 240-day period, it is not final and definitive as correctly held by the Court of Appeals (CA).
A final and definitive disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the extent of the sickness or injuries to the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. 6 To be conclusive, the medical assessments or reports must be complete and definite to give the proper disability benefits to seafarers. 7 There must also be sufficient bases to support the assessment. 8 CAIHTE
The Medical Report dated May 4, 2015 issued by Dr. Go merely states that Aleman's "prognosis for returning to sea duties is guarded"9 and "if patient is entitled to disability, his suggested disability grading is Grade 10 — loss of grasping power for large objects."10 It is notably bereft of any statement or explanation as to how she arrived with her medical conclusion. In fact, Dr. Go merely adopted the findings or observations of the Orthopedics and Spine Surgery specialist. The May 4, 2015 Medical Report also does not contain a definite statement as to Aleman's fitness to return to sea duties as it states that Aleman's prognosis of returning to his sea duties is still guarded.
The May 4, 2015 Medical Report is similar to the assessment given by the company-designated physician in Talaugon v. BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc.11 The Court held therein that such medical assessment is not final and definitive for lack of detailed explanation on the progress of the seafarer's treatment and statement as to the approximate period needed for him to fully recover, thus:
Here, Medical Report dated May 15, 2014 contained the following observations: "the prognosis of returning to (his) sea duties is guarded" and "If patient is entitled to a disability, his suggested disability grading is Grade 11 — slight rigidity or 1/3 loss of motion of lifting power of the trunk."
This is hardly the "definite and conclusive assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness to return to work" required by law from the company-designated physician. For there was nothing on record showing that the company-designated physician explained in detail the progress of petitioner's treatment and the approximate period needed for him to fully recover. 12 (Citations omitted)
Considering that no final and definitive assessment was issued before the lapse of 240 days, Aleman's disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law. Thus, he is entitled to $110,000.00 under the CBA.
On the award of attorney's fees, the same is justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code considering that Aleman was compelled to litigate to satisfy his claims for disability benefits. 13 The Court, however, finds the amount of $1,000.00 as reasonable award of attorney's fees. 14 aScITE
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated June 18, 2018 is DENIED. The Decision dated October 20, 2017 and Resolution dated May 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146584 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Lazaro-Javier, J., no part; Carandang, J., additional member per Raffle dated December 11, 2019. Lopez, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-15.
2. Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
3. 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
4.Id. at 362-363.
5.Talaugon v. BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 227934, September 4, 2019.
6.Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November 19, 2018.
7.Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018, 864 SCRA 428, 449.
8.Id. at 450, citing Monana v. Global Shipmanagement and Manning Corporation, 746 Phil. 736 (2014).
9.Rollo, p. 31.
10.Id.
11.Supra note 5.
12.Id.
13.Ocean Prosperity Manning and Management Corporation v. Silva, G.R. No. 225269, September 14, 2016 (Unsigned Resolution).
14.NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. Illescas, 646 Phil. 244, 265 (2010); and Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 622 Phil. 832, 843 (2009).