MICHAELMAR PHILS., INC., SEA JUSTICE SA AND/OR MA. MERCEDES M. ºRAVANOPOULOS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SIXTH DIVISION) AND ADRIAN L. EDAY, RESPONDENTS.

Michaelmar Philippines versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Michaelmar Philippines, Incorporated, Sea Justice Shipping Agency, and their responsible officer against the National Labor Relations Commission and the seafarer Adrian Eday. The seafarer was injured on board ship, and the question is whether he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a company doctor's interim disability grading, and why the seafarer's loss of earning capacity, not the medical label, controls.

Procedural History

The seafarer first filed a complaint for unpaid sickness allowance, which was later amended to include total and permanent disability benefits and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in his favor, sustaining the claim for total and permanent disability benefits. The employers appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth Division, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter in full. The Commission then denied the employers' motion for reconsideration. The employers came to the Supreme Court through a special action of certiorari, assailing the Commission's decision and resolution.

Facts

Adrian Eday signed a contract of employment in October 2012 to work as an able seaman on the vessel India. Before joining, he passed the required pre-embarkation medical examination and was declared fit for sea duty. On the eighth of January 2013, while the vessel was en route to Santos, Brazil, he was tasked to clean a steel plate cover. The heavy steel plate slipped from its position, and he tried to stop it from falling but could not hold it. It crushed his left hand.

Five days later, at Cape Town, a rescue helicopter brought him to a hospital, where he was found to have multiple fractures. He underwent surgery, with the fracture fixed by plating and screws, and stayed in the hospital for twelve more days. The surgeon advised that it would take a year before the plating could be removed, and that he could no longer use the injured hand for heavy activity. He was declared unfit for sea duty and repatriated on the twenty-sixth of January 2013.

Upon arrival, he was referred to the company-designated physician at Ygeia Medical Center. He was advised to undergo physical therapy, but he could not move his hand without pain and noticed he had lost his grip. The company physician did not answer his questions and told him to wait for instructions. He consulted an independent physician, Doctor Manuel Fidel Magtira, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duties. After several check-ups, he asked for reimbursement of medical expenses and assistance for therapy, and later for his sickness allowance, but the employers refused. He filed a complaint, and after the employers settled the sickness allowance claim, they prematurely terminated his medical treatment. The company medical report assessed his condition as disability Grade 10 on the one hundred sixteenth day from repatriation, but the report itself described the assessment as merely interim and estimated four to six months more of physical therapy.

Issues

• Whether or not the seafarer is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits despite the company physician's Grade 10 interim assessment made within the two hundred forty day period.
• Whether or not the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission should be respected on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code provides:

Sec. 2. Disability. – (a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.

(b) 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, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.

(c) A disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body.

These definitions supply the test the Court applies: a disability lasting beyond one hundred twenty days is total and permanent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the seafarer is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The employers' argument that the Grade 10 assessment was made within the two hundred forty day period does not hold water, because the medical report itself stated that the assessment was merely interim and that the seafarer needed four to six months more of physical therapy. The report contained no declaration that he was fit for sea duty. The Court stressed that disability is understood less on its medical significance and more on the loss of earning capacity. It quoted its own ruling:

In accordance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and full protection to labor, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to Filipino seafarers, it holding that the notion of disability is intimately related to the worker’s capacity to earn, what is compensated being not his injury or illness but his inability to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity; hence, disability should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.

The Court also quoted the test from Vicente against the Employees Compensation Commission:

Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly suffers from ‘permanent total disability’ regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.

And it added:

A total disability does not require that the employee be absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom.

Even absent an official finding, the Court applied the guidelines in Fil-Star Maritime Corporation against Rosete, holding that permanent disability is inability to perform one's job for more than one hundred twenty days, regardless of loss of any part of the body. On the second issue, the Court held that the factual findings of labor officials, affirmed in full by the Commission and supported by substantial evidence, are accorded not only respect but even finality, and it found no compelling reason to depart from that principle.

Doctrine

A seafarer's disability is measured by loss of earning capacity, not by the medical grading alone. An interim assessment by the company-designated physician, one that estimates further treatment and does not declare the seafarer fit for sea duty, cannot defeat a claim for total and permanent disability. Under Section 2, Rule VII, a disability is total and permanent if the seafarer cannot perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding one hundred twenty days. Total disability does not require absolute paralysis; it is enough that the injury prevents the seafarer from pursuing his usual work and earning from it. Finally, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded respect and even finality.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed; the seafarer won his total and permanent disability benefits.

Remember This

Memorize this line: disability is understood less on its medical significance and more on the loss of earning capacity. Examiners use this case to test whether a Grade 10 interim assessment made within the two hundred forty day period bars a claim for total and permanent disability benefits.