BILL CARLO DC CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELA-TIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), AND MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD., DS SCHIFFAHRT GMBH …
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, J.:
Decision dated May 8, 2013:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 27, 2013 is hereby REVERSED. Complainants Marlow Navigation Phils. Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co. Ltd. DS Schiffahrt GMBH & Co., KG. are declared liable to pay the respondent the amount of THIRTEEN THOUSAND SIXTY US DOLLARS (US$13,060.00) or its peso equivalent.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[4]”
Resolution dated June 13, 2013:
“WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
No further motion of this nature shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.[5]”
The facts are:
On December 8, 2006, petitioner Bill Carlo DC Castro (petitioner for brevity) was hired as a Deck Cadet by private respondent Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., for and in behalf of its principal, private respondent Marlow Navigation Co. Ltd., DS Schiffahrt GMBH & Co. KG. (herein collectively referred to as private respondents for brevity).[6] After petitioner passed the required Pre-Employment Medical Examination, he was deployed on December 29, 2006 to his assigned vessel, M/V “Cape Henry”, where he was supposed to work for twelve (12) months. His contract was extended for another five (5) months.[7] On December 29, 2007, one year after his deployment, petitioner had an accident while securing the gangway of the vessel. He got caught in a steel cable and injured his left arm, forearm and hand, left submandibular area, back and left lateral chest area.[8] He was initially treated at a hospital facility in Bangladesh,[9] and repatriated on January 10, 2008. He was referred to the company-designated doctor, Dr. Natalio Alegre II at the NGA Medical Clinic.[10] Thereafter, he underwent a series of operations and treatments for his injuries, which left him to suffer multiple fractures in his hand, underwent bone grafting and amputation of his fingers.[11] After his rehabilitation, the company-designated doctor issued on April 28, 2008 a Grade “9” disability assessment of his injury based on the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC for brevity).[12] He was offered an amount of US$13,060.00 as payment of his disability benefit but he refused to accept the same.[13] On February 12, 2009, private respondents filed a Complaint[14] for Compulsory Arbitration against the petitioner to settle their dispute on the amount of disability benefits to be paid. However, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.[15] Both the Labor Arbiter[16] and the NLRC[17] dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but this ruling was reversed by this Court in its Decision[18] dated September 22, 2011. With the finality of this decision,[19] the case was remanded to Labor Arbiter Catalino R. Laderas for further proceedings[20] but the latter inhibited from handling the case.[21] It was re-raffled to Labor Arbiter Michelle Pagtalunan (Labor Arbiter for brevity), who held a series of mandatory conferences but no settlement was reached by the parties, thus they were required to submit their respective position papers.[22]
In his Position Paper,[23] petitioner alleged that he cannot be compelled to accept the unreasonable amount of US$13,060.00 as payment for his disability claim. He contended that the labor arbiter was not sanctioned by law to handle the present controversy, which is akin to an action for tender of payment and consignation, falling within the jurisdiction of the regular court. Furthermore, he argued that the compensation scheme for death and/or disability provided under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC for brevity) was meant to set the minimum protection extended to seafarers but never intended to limit the latter’s remedies/claims against its foreign employers. He maintained that the work related injuries which he sustained while on board private respondents’ vessel caused him to suffer total and permanent disability, rendering him completely disabled and unable to perform his usual tasks as a seaman. His permanent impairment led to a substantial loss in his earning capacity for which he should be compensated with the maximum disability benefit in the amount of US$60,000.00 as per POEA-SEC. He also asked for reimbursements for his medical and transportation expenses which private respondents allegedly withheld, and payment for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fee plus legal interest on his money claims for the undue delay in the payment of his disability benefits.
Private respondents, on the other hand, countered in their position paper[24] that petitioner is only entitled to the amount of US$13,060.00 based on the Grade “9” disability assessment of their company-designated physician, in accordance with the “Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted” and “Schedule of Disability Allowances” provided in the POEA-SEC. According to private respondents, the amount of disability benefit is determined by the disability assessment issued by the company-designated physician in relation to the Schedule of Disability or Impairment provided in the POEA-SEC and not dependent on the inability of the seafarer to go back to work post-injury. They argued that the alleged incapacity suffered by the petitioner which prevented him from working again does justify payment of the full/maximum disability benefit. Rather, the disability should be assessed on the grading provided in the POEA-SEC, and the amount corresponding to the assessed injury should be paid to the disabled seafarer. To pay anything more than the amount of the assessed injury sustained is a breach of contract and an infringement of the protection of the shipowners against unreasonable claims guaranteed by the POEA-SEC.
On February 27, 2013, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.[25] Private respondents appealed to the NLRC.26 On May 8, 2013, public respondent NLRC reversed the findings of the labor arbiter and rendered the assailed decision.[27] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[28] but said motion was denied.[29]
Hence, this petition based on the following grounds:[30]
I.
THERE IS PRIMA FACIE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS ONLY ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS EQUIVALENT TO GRADE 9 RELYING SOLELY ON THE DECLARATION OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN.
II.
THERE IS PRIMA FACIE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT WHEN IT UNREASONABLY IGNORED THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S ENTITLEMENT TO THE MAXIMUM DISABILITY BENEFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF US$60,000.00.
(A) PETITIONER IS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED CONSIDERING THAT HE COULD NO LONGER RETURN TO WORK AS A SEAFARER, THE JOB HE WAS ACCUSTOMED TO PERFORM.
(B) CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED DOCTOR, PETITIONER’S INJURY IS EQUIVALENT TO GRADE 1.
(C) PETITIONER IS SUFFERING FROM TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY SINCE HE REMAINS INCAPACITATED FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 120 DAYS.
III.
THERE IS PRIMA FACIE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S CLAIM FOR MEDICAL AND TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENTS AS WELL AS PAYMENT OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AS WELL AS ATTORNEY’S FEES DESPITE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ BRAZEN DISREGARD TO COMPLY WITH THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.
IV
THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT CONTAINS SERIOUS ERRORS IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACTS AND LAW WHICH, IF NOT CORRECTED, WOULD CAUSE GRAVE OR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PETITIONERS.
The petition is without merit.
Petitioner claims that public respondent NLRC committed a mistake in upholding the “Grade 9” disability assessment of the company-designated doctor, maintaining that his injury should be classified as a “Grade 1” injury entitling him to the payment of the maximum disability benefit in the amount of US$60,000.00 instead of only US$ 13,060.00. This contention leads to the pivotal question of whether the disability assessment made by the company designated doctor should be the basis for determining the amount of disability benefit awarded to petitioner.
While it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered a permanent disability during employment, this does not preclude the seafarer from seeking a second opinion.[31] Even the POEA-SEC recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request a second opinion and to consult a physician of his choice.[32] Jurisprudence further states that if serious doubt exists on the company-designated physician’s declaration of the nature of a seaman’s injury and its corresponding impediment grade, resort to prognosis of other competent medical professionals should be made.[33] In doing so, a seaman should be given the opportunity to assert his claim after proving the nature of his injury.[34] These pieces of evidence will in turn be used to determine the benefits rightfully accruing to him.[35] But petitioner did not avail of this option. As the one who alleges a critical fact, petitioner is bound to establish his claim with substantial evidence.[36] Here, petitioner merely declared that he is entitled to receive more than what the company-designated doctor assessed, but failed to provide any evidence/basis or even a second opinion from a doctor of his choice to support his claim. Significantly, without substantial evidence from which reasonable basis for the grant of benefits prayed for can be drawn, this Court is left with no choice but to deny his petition, lest an injustice be caused to the employer.[37] While it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[38]
Concomitantly, petitioner’s claim for reimbursements, damages and attorney’s fees must also fail. To reiterate, the party who alleges a claim, carries the burden of proof[39] to support the allegation, and this requires substantial evidence.[40] Substantial evidence refers to that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[41] Using this as a standard, it is clear that the petitioner failed to hurdle this task as there is no evidence adduced to justify his entitlement.
All told, in the absence of anything to show that public respondent NLRC’s determination is without substantial evidence to support it, this Court will give it the respect it deserves. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency upon which its labor officials’ findings rest.[42] The calibration of the evidence of the parties statutorily belongs to the NLRC.[43] Thus, when the findings of fact of labor tribunals are sufficiently supported by evidence on record, they are accorded respect, and are considered binding on this Court.[44] As long as their decisions are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, this Court will not disturb nor modify their findings.[45]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 8, 2013 and the Resolution dated June 13, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 04-000296-10 (RA-04-13) NLRC NCR OFW-M-02-02630-09 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Bruselas, Jr., A.D., and Gaerlan, S.H., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-33
[2] Rollo, pp. 35-50
[3] Rollo, pp. 58-60
[4] Rollo, pp. 48-49
[5] Rollo, p. 59
[6] Rollo, pp. 8-9, 38, 181
[7] Rollo, pp. 9, 38, 135, 147, 182
[8] Rollo, pp. 9, 38, 135, 176, 182, 201
[9] Rollo, pp. 10, 38-39, 135,176, 182
[10] Rollo, pp. 10, 39, 135, 183
[11] Rollo, pp. 10-12, 39, 53, 135, 176-179, 183-185
[12] Rollo, p. 179
[13] Rollo, pp. 39, 135, 185
[14] Rollo, pp. 61-62
[15] Rollo, pp. 63-68
[16] Rollo, pp. 148-150
[17] Rollo, pp. 88-92
[18] Rollo, pp. 124-130
[19] Rollo, p. 51
[20] Rollo, p. 129
[21] Rollo, p. 168
[22] Rollo, p. 38
[23] Rollo, pp. 180-199
[24] Rollo, pp. 133-143
[25] Rollo, pp. 315-317
[26] Rollo, p. 35
[27] Supra, footnote 2
[28] Rollo, pp. 52-57
[29] Supra, footnote 3
[30] Rollo, pp. 4-6
[31] Seagull Maritime Corp. and Seagiant Shipmanagement Co. Ltd. vs. Jaycee Dee and National Labor Relations Commission (G. R. No. 165156, April 2, 2007)
[32] The relevant provision of the POEA Standard Employment Contract states:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS –
| xxx |
xxx
|
xxx
|
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
| xxx |
xxx
|
xxx
|
- Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
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. xxx”
[33] Seagull Maritime Corp. and Seagiant Shipmanagement Co. Ltd. vs. Jaycee Dee and National Labor Relations Commission (G. R. No. 165156, April 2, 2007)
[34] Id.
[35] Seagull Maritime Corp. and Seagiant Shipmanagement Co. Ltd. vs. Jaycee Dee and National Labor Relations Commission (G. R. No. 165156, April 2, 2007)
[36] Alex C. Cootauco vs. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc., et al. (G. R. No. 184722, March 15, 2010)
[37] Eduardo M. Panganiban vs. Tara Trading Shipmanagement Inc. and Shinline SDN BHD (G. R. No. 187032, October 18, 2010)
[38] Eduardo M. Panganiban vs. Tara Trading Shipmanagement Inc. and Shinline SDN BHD (G. R. No. 187032, October 18, 2010)
[39] Solidbank Corporation, now known as Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Gateway Electronics Corporation, et al. (G. R. No. 164805, April 30, 2008), states:
“Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.”
[40] Alex C. Cootauco vs. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc., et al. (G. R. No. 184722, March 15, 2010)
[41] Id.
[42] Seastar Marine Services Inc., and Cicero L. Malunda vs. Lucio A. Gul-an, Jr. (G. R. No. 142609, November 25, 2005)
[43] Id.
[44] Domingo O. Ignacio vs. Coca-cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (G. R. No. 144400, September 19, 2001)
[45] Id.