BALIWAG NAVIGATION, INC. AND / OR JOSEFINA SHIPPING CORPORATION, S.A., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RENATO M. MORELOS, RESPONDENTS.

Baliwag Navigation versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Baliwag Navigation, Incorporated and Josefina Shipping Corporation, S.A. against the National Labor Relations Commission and the seaman Renato M. Morelos. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to overturn the Commission's award of total and permanent disability benefits to Morelos, a Third Engineer who fell ill with pulmonary tuberculosis and diabetes while serving on board their ocean-going vessel. The case matters because it fixes who may determine a seaman's disability grade under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and it settles the weight to be given to an independent assessment by a physician of the Employees' Compensation Commission as against the assessment of the company designated physician.

Procedural History

Morelos filed a complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. On November 29, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in his favor, ordering the petitioners to pay him sickness allowance and disability benefits, plus attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 30, 2002, the Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter's findings but modified the award by deleting the sickness allowance, and it fixed the attorney's fees at ten percent of the disability benefits award. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, and the Commission denied the motion on December 27, 2002. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission.

Facts

The petitioners hired Morelos as Third Engineer on board the vessel MV CSK Unity. Their employment contract stipulated a period of ten months with a monthly salary of 800 dollars. On February 18, 1998, Morelos departed from the Philippines to board the vessel.

Sometime in October 1998, during his employment, Morelos began to complain of coughing, chest pain and recurrent fever. When the vessel reached the port of Japan, he was referred to the Kasuga Hospital, where he was initially diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis. After further tests, he was referred to the Kashima Hospital for isolation and treatment. There the initial findings were confirmed, and he was confined and treated for pulmonary tuberculosis and diabetes from November 13, 1998 up to June 19, 1999. Having been declared fit for air travel because of his improved condition, he was repatriated to the Philippines on June 19, 1999, and upon arrival he proceeded to the company designated physicians at the Metropolitan Hospital for evaluation and treatment.

Morelos complained that 120 days had passed since he signed off from the vessel, yet he had not been paid his sickness allowance and the company designated physician had made no assessment of his disability. He therefore filed his complaint, claiming that under the assessment of the Employees' Compensation Commission his condition falls under Grade 1 impediment. The petitioners answered that they had immediately referred him to the company designated physician, gave him medication and regular monitoring, and that in August 1999 his attending physicians opined that with his cooperation there was no reason he would not soon be cleared for work. They also claimed that in October 2000, after the case was filed, Morelos was assessed with a Grade 7 impediment, and on that basis they offered him 20,900 dollars in disability compensation, which he rejected. Morelos then sought an evaluation from the Employees' Compensation Commission, which first gave him a Grade 3 assessment, and later, upon a second evaluation, a Grade 1 assessment.

Issues

• Whether or not the disability assessment made by a physician of the Employees' Compensation Commission, rather than the company designated physician, may serve as the basis for awarding disability benefits to the seaman.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the assessment of the company designated physician and in relying on the assessment of the Commission's physician.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text. It applies the POEA approved Standard Employment Contract for seamen and its Schedule of Disability, which grade a seaman's impediment from Grade 1 to Grade 7, and it invokes Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. The Court states the governing principle in these words:

The POEA Employment Contract for Seamen is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment. Its provisions must therefore be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor and only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.

This principle governs how the disability grading provisions are to be read whenever the assessments of the company physician and an independent physician conflict.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the assessment of the Employees' Compensation Commission physician may serve as the basis for the award. The Court stressed that during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the petitioners themselves agreed to the proposition that Morelos submit himself to an evaluation and examination by a Commission physician to determine his disability. There was no indication that the evaluation was biased and self-serving. Consequently, the independent assessment deserved more evidentiary weight than the assessment made by the company designated physician.

On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. It recalled the settled doctrine that the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are considered binding on the court. The Commission had explained that Morelos first submitted himself to the Commission for examination upon the manifestation of both parties at the hearing, and that his condition later progressed from minimal pulmonary tuberculosis to moderately advanced pulmonary tuberculosis with cavitation, drug resistant to anti-tuberculosis drugs, entitling him to the benefits corresponding to Grade 1 of the POEA Schedule of Disability. The Court found these findings supported by substantial evidence. It further reminded the petitioners that certiorari under Rule 65 is extraordinary and restricted to truly extraordinary cases, and found no justification for its issuance.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the POEA Standard Employment Contract for seamen is a protective measure, and its provisions must be construed fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of the Filipino seaman. Second, where the employer has agreed that the seaman be examined by an independent physician of the Employees' Compensation Commission, the resulting assessment carries more evidentiary weight than the assessment of the company designated physician, absent any showing that it was biased and self-serving. Third, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission on a seaman's disability grade, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Court and will not be disturbed through the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied due course to and dismissed the petition, thereby sustaining the Commission's award of disability benefits corresponding to Grade 1 of the POEA Schedule of Disability in favor of Morelos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the POEA contract is construed liberally in favor of the seaman, and an independent assessment made with the employer's consent outweighs the company physician's grading. Examiners use this case to test the conflict between company designated and independent medical assessments, and the finality of labor tribunals' factual findings on disability.