NOEL M. GOPELA, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION), CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC., NORTH SEATANKER MANAGEMENT BV, AND CATHY LEODINES, RESPONDENTS.

Gopela versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Noel Gopela, a seafarer engaged as an Able Seaman, against the National Labor Relations Commission, his foreign employer Centennial Transmarine, Incorporated and North Seatanker Management BV, and Cathy Leodines. Gopela seeks the reversal and setting aside of two resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission which had dismissed his claim for disability benefits. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on two things every maritime labor practitioner must know: the mandatory and jurisdictional character of the appeal bond under the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, and the proper treatment of the employer's defense of fraudulent misrepresentation where the seafarer disclosed his medical history to the company-designated clinic.

Procedural History

Gopela filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission on the first of March 2011 for permanent total disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees. The parties failed to settle amicably before the Labor Arbiter despite conferences, mediation, and conciliation, so the Labor Arbiter required position papers. On the eleventh of November 2011, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering the respondents jointly and severally to pay total disability compensation of 89,100 dollars or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment, plus ten percent as attorney's fees.

The private respondents appealed by Memorandum of Appeal. On the twenty-seventh of July 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal for non-perfection. On motion for reconsideration, however, the Commission reversed course: in its resolution of the twenty-eighth of January 2013, it granted the appeal, reversed the Labor Arbiter, and dismissed Gopela's claim for lack of merit. Gopela's motion for reconsideration was denied in the resolution of the fourteenth of June 2013. Gopela then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, and the Court granted the petition.

Facts

The private respondents hired Gopela as an Able Seaman. On the fourteenth of October 2012, during the term of his employment on board the vessel Global Earth, he suffered an accidental back injury after lifting heavy objects, with pain radiating through his lower extremity. He was referred to the respondents' accredited physician in Setubal, Portugal, who prescribed pain relievers, but his condition did not improve. He was repatriated, underwent post-employment medical examination and further treatment, and still did not improve.

Because the respondents issued no disability finding, Gopela sought a second opinion from an orthopedic surgeon, who issued a medical certificate stating that Gopela was permanently not fit to work on a sea vessel. The respondents denied liability on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, insisting that Gopela had concealed material information about his lower back and spine during his pre-employment medical examination, and that he should therefore be disqualified from any compensation under the Standard Contract or the collective bargaining agreement.

Gopela answered that he had disclosed his previous surgery and all matters asked of him, and that the respondents were in fact aware of his condition. The company-designated hospital was the Metropolitan Medical Center, the very facility where he had been admitted for his previous surgical operation. He passed the pre-employment medical examination of the twenty-second of July 2010 and was declared fit for sea duty without restriction, with his previous operation disclosed and treated by the company-designated physicians. He departed from the point of hire and embarked on the vessel on the twenty-sixth of July 2010.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely erred in admitting the private respondents' appeal and motion for reconsideration despite non-compliance with the mandatory requirements for perfecting an appeal under the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely erred in reversing the Labor Arbiter on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Applicable Provisions

Rule VI, Section 4 of the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, on the requisites for perfecting an appeal, provides:

Within the period provided in Section 3 of this Rule, the appellant shall file with the Regional Arbitration Branch where the case was heard and decided, a Notice of Appeal, copy furnished the adverse party, and a Memorandum of Appeal, with proof of service of the Memorandum of Appeal to the adverse party and proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal research fee, and the posting of a cash or surety bond.

This provision fixes the complete set of acts that must be done within the appeal period, and the respondents failed to complete them.

Rule VI, Section 6 of the same Rules, on the bond, provides:

The bond shall be accompanied by a certification of posting of the surety bond from the surety company, and proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond: provided that a check shall not be considered as an acceptable security.

This provision makes the bond a strict requirement, and it is the provision the respondents violated.

The same Rule VI, Section 6 further provides on the consequence of a defective bond:

Upon verification by the Commission that the bond is irregular or not genuine, the Commission shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal, and censure the responsible parties and their counsels, or subject them to reasonable fine or penalty, and the bonding company may be blacklisted.

This fixes the sanction of immediate dismissal, which the Commission failed to apply.

Finally, the same Rule VI, Section 6 provides on the effect of non-compliance:

A mere notice of appeal without complying with all the aforementioned requisites shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.

This is the rule that defeats the respondents' appeal, because the period continued to run and the appeal was never perfected.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is meritorious because the National Labor Relations Commission gravely erred in admitting the appeal and the motion for reconsideration despite non-compliance with the mandatory requirements for perfecting an appeal. The running of the period to appeal did not stop by the mere filing of the Memorandum of Appeal without complying with all the requisites of Rule VI, Sections 4 and 6 of the 2011 Rules of Procedure. The posting of the bond is mandatorily required as proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond, and a check is not an acceptable security. The Court stressed that upon verification that the bond is irregular or not genuine, the Commission shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal. It asked how the Commission could reverse itself when, upon verification, the bond itself was irregular on its face. It noted that no provision of Rule VI gives the respondents discretion as to the time to submit the mandatory requirements without violating the Rules, and that the issue of non-perfection was not even disputed by the respondents in their Comment.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission gravely erred in reversing the Labor Arbiter on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, since Gopela had disclosed his previous operation and other ailments. There was therefore no legal basis for the charge. The Court observed that the company-designated hospital was the Metropolitan Medical Center, the same hospital where Gopela had been confined for his previous surgery, so the respondents had all the medical records on hand. It pointed to the Revised Guidelines for Medical Fitness Examinations for Seafarers, which require the medical examiner to keep full clinical notes and results of the pre-employment medical examination in the clinic's record section for a minimum retention of three years. Fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court concluded, cannot be committed by the petitioner under these circumstances.

Doctrine

First, the requirements for perfecting an appeal under Rule VI, Sections 4 and 6 of the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission are mandatory, and a mere notice of appeal without complying with all the requisites shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal. A bond that is irregular on its face, such as one secured by a check, which the Rules expressly reject as acceptable security, warrants the immediate dismissal of the appeal.

Second, the employer's defense of fraudulent misrepresentation against a seafarer's disability claim cannot prosper where the seafarer disclosed his previous surgery and ailments during the pre-employment medical examination conducted at the company-designated hospital, the very facility where he had been treated, and where the company-designated physicians cleared him as fit for sea duty without restriction.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated the twenty-eighth of January 2013 and the fourteenth of June 2013 were reversed and set aside, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reinstated, with the modification that moral damages and exemplary damages of 100,000 pesos each were awarded to Gopela.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a mere notice of appeal without complying with all the requisites shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory appeal bond under the 2011 Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission and the fraudulent misrepresentation defense in seafarers' disability claims.