CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., GOLDEN UNION SHIPPING COMPANY S.A. AND ELEAZAR DIAZ, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION) AND EUGENIO M. GOME…
GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, J:
The facts that preceded the filing of the Complaint[5] for permanent total disability benefits, damages and attorney’s filed by Eugenio M. Gomez (Gomez) against Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., Golden Shipping Company S.A. and Eleazar Diaz (petitioners) are not disputed.
On October 12, 2011, Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., in behalf of its principal Golden Union Shipping Co., hired Gomez as an Ordinary Seaman in the vessel M/V Elena VE for a period of eleven (11) months, with basic monthly compensation of US$583.00.[6] The contract complied with the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean Going Vessels (POEA-SEC).[7] At the time of Gomez’ employment, the employees of M/V Elena VE were covered by a special agreement known as ITF TCC Collective Agreement between the shipowner and the union.[8]
In the course of the performance of his duty, Gomez accidentally slipped on the icy deck of the ship on February 29, 2012 and, as a consequence thereof, he suffered from low back pain. Upon reaching the port of Antwerp, Belgium on March 15, 2012, Gomez requested for medical assistance for the persistent back pain he was experiencing after the accident.[9] The attending physician diagnosed him to have been suffering from “Lumbago” or low back pain and he was given medicine for his pain.[10] He was also advised to rest for three weeks and to seek further medical examination and treatment. On March 19, 2012, Gomez was repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, Gomez was immediately referred to the company’s accredited doctors at International Health Aide Diagnostic Services, Inc. (IHADS) for medical evaluation. He also underwent six sessions of physical therapy but the pain in his lumbar area still persisted. On April 10, 2012, he saw Dr. Maria Dolores Tay, a company-designated physician, for a follow-up check up and the following findings were observed:
He has finished 6 physical therapy session. Improvement is noted but there is still palpable tenderness on the lumbosacral area. Steriod is injected subcutaneously in the most tender point. This is done by the attending Spine Surgeon. Physiotherapy is discontinued. He should rest and resume rehabilitation after clearance by the Surgeon. If symptoms persist, MRI will be done on his next visit.[11]
By reason of his recurring pain, on May 11, 2012, IHADS referred Gomez for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of his lumbosacral spine at the UPMC to precisely determine the cause of pain. The MRI test demonstrated the following result:
L4 – L5: disc dessication, diffuse disc bulge with focal central protrusion causing moderate central ste[nosis,] moderate right foraminal stenosis and mild left foraminal stenosis. Bilateral facet joint hypertrophy cont[ribute to] the degree of stenosis.
L5 – S1: disc dessication diffuse disc bulge with focal broad-based central to left far foraminal disc protrusion causing mild central stenosis, mild right foraminal stenosis and severe left foraminal stenosis. Bilateral f[acet joint] hypertrophy contribute to the degree of stenosis.
xxx
IMPRESSION:
Multilevel discogenic and osteophytic central canal and bilateral foraminal stenosis as described, L4 – L5 [and] L5 – S1.Disc dessication, L4 – L5 and L5 – S1.[12]
On June 6, 2012, Gomez was hospitalized at the Medical Center Manila for lumbar Laminectomy[13] and Foraminotomy[14] to address his medical condition concerning bulging or herniated disc, as per advice by the company doctor.[15] He was discharged on June 13, 2012.
On June 20, 2012, Gomez went to IHADS for a follow-up check up where he was advised to lose weight and to engage in mild activities. The company-designated doctor also made an assessment of his disability to be at Grade 8 based on the POEA Schedule of Impediments. Follow-up treatments were continued in the hope that Gomez would be restored to his full physical capacity in the performance of his sea duty.[16]
On September 11, 2012, Dr. Tay issued to Eleazar Diaz a medical report observing that Gomez failed the functional capacity test that would determine his fitness to resume sea duty; that he needed to further develop his flexibility training in two to three months; and that disability assessment at Grade 8 remained unchanged, viz:
PRESENT EXAMINATION:
He still complains of mild low back discomfort although no neurologic deficits noted. Functional capacity testing was done according to his job description which he did not pass due to back pain on certain motions. He should continue flexibility and strength exercises through his physiatrist. Follow up is scheduled on October 11, 2012.DIAGNOSIS: Status post laminectomy L4L5 – L5S1 and foraminotomy L4L5 – L5S1. On going physiotherapy.
DISPOSITION: Prognosis is fair to good. His symptoms at present are subjective. If he will pass the functional capacity testing after adequate flexibility is attained, he can resume work at sea.
This is seen in 2 to 3 more months. Interim disability assessment is unchanged at Grade 8 based on the POEA Contract Schedule of Impediments.[17]
Meantime, Gomez went to see another physician, Dr. Renato P. Runas, for a second opinion regarding the pain he still felt in his lumbosacral area. Dr. Runas found that Gomez’ truncal movement was still hampered by pain and numbness. The Medical Evaluation Report dated September 7, 2012 described Gomez’ condition as follows:
At present, Seaman Gomez is still incapacitated due to pain on the lower back with numbness of the left lower extremity. Lower back pain is triggered by exertion. He cannot tolerate prolonged walking and standing because of pain. Forward and backward trunk motion is limited because of pain. He has difficulty standing from a sitting position. xxx
Seaman Gomez is still saddled with persistent and chronic moderate to severe low back pain. The residual pain is secondary to the disc disease and osteoarthritis. This chronic residual low back pain proved to be refractory to medications and physiotherapy management. He is unable to to carry and lift heavy objects due to stiffness and pain. It is also difficult for him to bend, pick up and carry objects from the floor because of the limitation of trunk motion. The surgery has lessened the intensity of pain but he did not regain his physical capacity to work. As an Ordinary Seaman, he does strenuous and heavy jobs which are no longer possible after the surgery. He needs complete activity modification to avoid further damage to the spine. He is unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity with a permanent disability since he can no longer perform his work which he is previously engaged in.[18]
Accordingly, Gomez demanded payment of total permanent disability benefits from the petitioners but the latter ignored the demand. Efforts towards an amicable settlement were unsuccessful. Thus, on September 13, 2012, Gomez filed a Complaint[19] asking payment of disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees before the Office of the Labor Arbiter – National Capital Region against the petitioner, docketed as NLRC-NCR-OFW-CASE No. (M) 09-13737-12.
On November 22, 2012, Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari rendered a Decision[20] ruling that Gomez was permanently and totally disabled and that he could no longer resume sea duty. The Labor Arbiter further held that despite the lapse of one hundred twenty (120) days from Gomez’ repatriation, the company-designated physician neither declared that the latter was permanently disabled nor gave him a fit-to-work order. The fallo of the said Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, a Decision is hereby rendered ordering Respondents Crossworld Marine Services, Inc. and Golden Union Shipping Company, S.A. to jointly and severally pay complainant Eugenio M. Gomez permanent disability benefit Grade 1, in the amount of US$156,816 or its peso equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment plus 10% thereof as and by way of attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.[21]
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission arguing that the labor arbiter erred in declaring Gomez to have been totally and permanently disabled considering that there was improvement in his condition, as shown by a prognosis from fair to good, following his extensive treatment. They likewise contended that Gomez’ disability compensation should be limited only to Grade 8 disability as assessed by the company-designated physician based on the Schedule of Impediments of the standard POEA contract. The petitioners thus faulted the labor arbiter in awarding Gomez full disability benefits in the amount of US$156,816 only under ITF Standard Collective Bargaining Agreement. According further to the petitioners, even assuming that the latter was entitled to permanent and total disability compensation, the amount should be limited to US$90,882 only in pursuance to the provisions of the ITF TCC Collective Agreement that covers their seafarers and not the one provided under the ITF Standard CBA.
In a Decision[22] dated April 11, 2013, the NLRC denied the petitioners’ appeal and sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter on the following ratiocination:
With the foregoing state of physical health despite extensive medical attention accorded to complainant, We sustain the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that complainant is suffering from a permanent total disability. It is not difficult to understand that complainant deemed it pointless to go on with further therapy after he consulted a specialist of his choice. Given the medical condition of complainant as elaborated by complainant’s specialist of choice and with due regard to the observations of the company-designated doctors that complainant’s back pain persisted despite surgery and rehabilitation for a period of six months, We are inclined to believe that complainant is indeed suffering from a permanent total disability as he is already permanently impaired in his earning capacity as an ordinary seaman or in any other work of similar kind or nature. Permanent total disability does not mean absolute helplessness. It means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do xxx.[23] (Citation omitted)
The petitioners sought reconsideration of the adverse Decision but the NLRC likewise denied the same per Resolution[24] dated June 30, 2013. Hence, this petition ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC in affirming the award in favor of Gomez of full disability benefits in the amount of US$156,816 under the ITF Standard CBA.[25]
We now resolve.
Whether the lumbosacral injury, i.e. herniated disc and disc dessication at L4-L5 and L5-S1, suffered by Gomez was work-related and/or caused by an accident that happened in the course of the performance of his duty as an Ordinary Seaman is not in issue in the instant case. It is compensable under the POEA-SEC and the applicable collective bargaining agreement, the ITF TCC Collective Agreement, that covered the employees of M/V Elene VE.
The crux of the controversy revolves around a determination of Gomez’ injury, whether the same is permanent total disability, in order to ascertain the rate of disability compensation that should be awarded to him.
In Remegio v. NLRC,[26] the Supreme Court expounded on the concept of permanent total disability as applied to Filipino seafarers, thus:
“Disability” is generally defined as “loss or impairment of a physical or mental function resulting from injury or sickness.” Clearly, “disability” is not synonymous with “sickness” or “illness,” the former being a potential effect of the latter. xxx
xxx
Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be suffering from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work by the company-accredited physician. The Court affirmed the award of disability benefits to the seaman, citing ECC v. Sanico, GSIS v. CA, and Bejerano v. ECC that “disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.” It likewise cited Bejerano v. ECC, that in a disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity. (Emphasis Ours)
The evidence clearly establish that Gomez’ injury rendered him permanently disabled which hindered him from performing the work he was trained for or accustomed to do. Despite immediate and extensive medical treatment which lasted for six (6) months or one hundred eighty (180) days accorded him by the petitioners, the company-designated physician’s assessment of his injury did not show remarkable progress. The surgical procedures, i.e. laminectomy and foraminotomy, that were conducted to address Gomez’ herniated discs did not entirely free him from low back pain. Although Dr. Tay made a prognosis of “fair to good” on September 11, 2012, Gomez’ disability with a Grade 8 impediment remained unchanged. She likewise noted that Gomez did not pass the functional capacity test that was tailored to the latter’s job description and recommended further therapy session for flexibility enhancement; and that the same shall take another two (2) to three (3) months. To be sure, despite the absence of an express declaration that Gomez was permanently disabled, his continued incapacity to earn a gainful employment as a seaman is more than apparent to show his permanent disability.
The petitioners, however, argue that Gomez’ disability was not permanent because the company-designated physician’s findings as to his fitness to go back to work or disability were not yet final; and that the prognosis of his medical condition after more than five (5) months of extensive treatment was good, indicating the “likelihood of restoring [Gomez’] fitness to resume seafaring.”[27] They also discredit the findings of Dr. Runas that the latter was unfit for sea duty. Petitioners posit that Dr. Runas’ findings are unreliable and not supported by evidence because the latter failed to closely monitor Gomez’ medical condition and merely based the same on past examinations conducted by the company-designated physician.
We do not agree.
We are mindful of the provisions of the POEA-SEC as well as the applicable ITF TCC Collective Agreement that it is the duty of the company-designated doctor to declare the employee’s fitness or unfitness to resume sea duty. However, the said rule does not deprive the seaman to seek and consult another doctor expert on his field to make independent evaluation of his medical condition.[28]
Section 20 (A), paragraph 3 of the POEA-SEC reads:
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
xxx
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
Likewise, the Section 24.2 of the ITF TCC Collective Agreement provides:
24.2 The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated jointly between the company and the seafarer and the decision of this doctor shall be final and binding on both parties.
Here, there is no third physician that was jointly appointed by the petitioners and Gomez; therefore, this Court shall evaluate the findings of Dr. Tay and Dr. Runas based on their inherent merit.[29] We find no genuine inconsistency between the findings of the two doctors. We reiterate that although Dr. Tay made no definitive findings as to the fitness of Gomez to resume his duties as Ordinary Seaman, she noted that the latter could not yet resume his work because he failed the funtional capacity test; and that his disability with an impediment of Grade 8 shall continue up to three months. On the other hand, while Dr. Tay’s findings were vague and inconclusive, Dr. Runas was explicit in declaring that Gomez’ injury is permanent because the same is resistant to physical therapy and treatment. Consistent with the findings of the company-designated physician, Dr. Runas observed that Gomez’ low back pain is triggered by exertion, thus, limiting his forward and backward trunk motion.[30] Dr. Runas opined that regardless of continuous medical intervention, Gomez could no longer perform strenuous and heavy work, making him “unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity”, thus:
At present, Seaman Gomez is still incapacitated due to pain on the lower back with numbness of the left lower extremity. Lower back pain is triggered by exertion. He cannot tolerate prolonged walking and standing because of pain. Forward and backward trunk motion is limited because of pain. He has difficulty standing from a sitting position. xxx
Seaman Gomez is still saddled with persistent and chronic moderate to severe low back pain. The residual pain is secondary to the disc disease and osteoarthritis. This chronic residual low back pain proved to be refractory to medications and physiotherapy management. He is unable to to carry and lift heavy objects due to stiffness and pain. It is also difficult for him to bend, pick up and carry objects from the floor because of the limitation of trunk motion. The surgery has lessened the intensity of pain but he did not regain his physical capacity to work. As an Ordinary Seaman, he does strenuous and heavy jobs which are no longer possible after the surgery. He needs complete activity modification to avoid further damage to the spine. He is unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity with a permanent disability since he can no longer perform his work which he is previously engaged in.[31]
As between Dr. Runas’ express declaration that Gomez is suffering from permanent disability and Dr. Tay’s more positive assessment, We give merit to the former’s findings. In Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila, et al.,[32] the Supreme Court recognized the propensity of the company-designated physicians, who ere employed by the shipowner or the manning agency, to be more hopeful in their evaluation than that of a physician of the seafarer’s choice. If We uphold the more positive outlook of the company-designated physician, the seaman would inevitably be denied of his right to disability compensation under Our labor laws and the parties’ agreement. We should be cognizant of the social justice principle upon which Our labor laws are founded – that when there is doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the working man. Apropos is the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Abante, citing HFS Philippines v. Pilar,[33] thus:
The bottomline is this: the certification of the company-designated physician would defeat respondent’s claim while the opinion of the independent physicians would uphold such claim. In such a situation, we adopt the findings favorable to respondent.
The law looks tenderly on the laborer. Where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in his favor consistent with the principle of social justice. (Emphasis Ours)
However, the issue of whether or not the injury of Gomez is total or partial is another matter as the NLRC failed to state the factual basis in declaring Gomez totally disabled. Recall must be made that the medical findings of Dr. Runas were also silent with respect to the disability grade of Gomez’ injury. It must also be noted that Gomez’ injury is not among those listed under Section 32[34] of the POEA-SEC as having Grade 1 impediment, which is considered as total disability.
Also, the Labor Arbiter’s reliance on the presumption of permanent total disability expressed under Article 192 of the Labor Code[35] finds no application in this case. As enunciated in Millan v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.,[36] a seafarer’s inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered an injury and/or illness is not a magic wand that automatically warrants the grant of total and permanent disability benefits in his favor. Prevailing jurisprudence[37] clarifies that when the seafarer who is suffering from an illness or injury needs further treatment in order to fully recover, the period of 120 days may be extended up to 240 days. It is only when the company-designated physician fails to arrived at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or disability within the 240-day period that the latter shall be deemed permanently and totally disabled. Here, this legal presumption of permanent and total disability does not yet operate in favor of Gomez as he filed his complaint only on September 13, 2012 following his expatriation on March 19, 2012. In fine, he filed the said complaint within 193 days reckoned from the date of his expatriation or before the lapse of the 240-day period, upon which Dr. Tay may make his final assessment of his medical condition.
For these reasons, We shall adopt the disability impediment of Grade 8 given by Dr. Tay as a fair standard in computing Gomez’ disability benefits, which has an equivalent rating of 33.59% under the Schedule of Disability Allowances provided in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC.
It is not disputed that the employees of M/V Elena VE were covered by ITF TCC Collective Agreement, thus, the provisions of the said agreement must be applied consistent with the settled rule that the POEA-SEC is supplemented by the collective bargaining agreement between the owner of the vessel and the covered seafarer.38 Under Section 24.3 of the said Agreement, the rate of compensation for Ratings to which an Ordinary Seaman like Gomez belongs, in case of total permanent disability, is US$90,882[39] and not US$156,816 as erroneously found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Since there is no showing that Gomez’ permanent disability is total, his disability compensation benefit should be computed as follows:
Disability compensation = 33.59% (Degree of disability) x US$90,882 = US$30,527.26
Anent the payment of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award, We deem the same to be proper and in accordance with Article 111 of the Labor Code and Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules, to wit:
Art. 111. Attorney’s fees.- (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney’s fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
xxx
Section 8. Attorney’s fees. – Attorney’s fees in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages shall not exceed 10% of the amount awarded. The fees may be deducted from the total amount due the winning party.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated April 11, 2013 and Resolution dated June 30, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division (Formerly Seventh Division), renderd in NLRC LAC No. OFW (M) 01-000126-13, NLRC NCR Case No. 09-13737-11, are hereby MODIFIED as follows:
1. Declaring Eugenio M. Gomez to have suffered permanent partial disability with an impediment of Grade 8;
2. Ordering the petitioners Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., Golden Union Shipping Company, S.A. And Eleazar Diaz jointly and severally liable to pay Gomez his disability compensation in the amount of US$30,527.26 or its peso equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment as well as attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the said amount due.
SO ORDERED.
*Ybañez, E. A., Acting Chairperson and Macalino, F.S., J.J., concur.
* Vice J. Punzalan Castillo, M.P., per Office Order No. 33-15-ABR dated January 30, 2015
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-46.
[2] Id., pp. 48-59.
[3] Id., pp. 66-78.
[4] Id., pp. 61-64.
[5] Id., pp. 118-119.
[6] Contract of Employment. Id., p. 79.
[7] As amended by Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, dated October 26, 2010.
[8] Id., p. 275. See also the Complaint of Gomez where he admitted the existence of ITF TCC Collective Agreement between the union and the shipowner, id., p. 118.
[9] Id., p. 109.
[10] Id., p. 144.
[11] Id., p. 110.
[12] Id., p. 113.
[13] It is a surgery that created space by removing the lamina – the back part of the vertebra that covers your spinal canal. Also know as decompression surgery, laminectomy enlarges your spinal canal to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves. In some cases, laminectomy maybe necessary as part of surgery to treat a herniated spinal disk. Your surgeon may need to remove part of the lamina to gain access to the damaged disk. www.mayoclinic.org.
[14] It is a minimally invasive surgical procedure performed to expand the opening of the spinal column where the nerve roots exit the spinal canal. Its purpose is to relieve the pressure resulting from foraminal stenosis. This is a painful condition caused by a narrowing of the foramen, the opening within each of the spinal bone that allows nerve roots to pass through. Herniated discs and thickened ligaments and joints may also be the cause of the narrowing of the foramen. www.orthospineinst.com.
[15] Id., p. 114.
[16] Id., pp. 115-116.
[17] Id., p. 117.
[18] Id., pp. 152-153.
[19] Supra.
[20] Rollo, pp. 66-78.
[21] Id., p. 78.
[22] Id., pp. 48-59.
[23] Id., p. 57.
[24] Id., pp. 61-64.
[25] Id., pp. 18-19. The petition states the issues as follows:
5.1. IN REFUSING TO REVERSE AND TO SET ASIDE THE DECISION DATED 22 NOVEMBER 2012 OF THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER LILIA S. SAVARI, PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
5.1.1. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD VERY PLAINLY SHOWS THAT THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE IS THE ITF TCC CBA AND NOT THE ITF STANDARD CBA. PUBLIC RESPONDENT FAILED TO ACCORD PROPER CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHEN IT AWARDED PERMANENT DISABILITY COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTEEN DOLLARS (US$156,816) PURSUANT TO THE ITF STANDARD CBA IN PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S FAVOR.
5.1.2. PUBLIC RESPONDENT GROSSLY DISREGARDED THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PETITIONERS VERY UNMISTAKABLY SHOWING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS NOT TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.
5.1.3. PUBLIC RESPONDENT WILLFULLY AND UNREASONABLY DIREGARDED THE PLAIN IMPORT OF THE PRESUMPTIVE PERMANENT DISABILITY RULE UNDER RULE 192 OF THE LABOR CODE.
5.1.4. PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ALLEGEDLY PAID BY HIM.
[26] G.R. No. 159887, April 12, 2006.
[27] Rollo, p. 30.
[28] Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila, et al., G.R. No. 182430, December 4, 2009 citing NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Talavera, G.R. No. 175894, November 24, 2008.
[29] NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. Illescas, G.R. No. 183054, September 20, 2010, citing HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar, G.R. No. 168716, April 16, 2009.
[30] Rollo, p. 153.
[31] Id., pp. 152-153.
[32] G.R. No. 182430, December 4, 2009.
[33] Supra.
[34] Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted.
[35] Now Article 198 (c) (1) of the Labor Code, which reads: “ 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.”
[36] G.R. No. 195168, November 12, 2012.
[37] See Kestrel Shipping Company, Inc., et al. v. Munar, G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013 citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172933, October 6, 2008.
[38] See Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., supra.
[39] Section 24.3 of ITF TCC Agreement.