SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., DANIA MARINE AND/OR ARSENIO BENJAMIN E. SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION) AND ANTONIO D. DAYO, RESPONDENTS.

Southfield Agencies versus Dayo

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 brought by Southfield Agencies, its foreign principal Dania Marine, and its officer Arsenio Benjamin Santos against the National Labor Relations Commission and the seafarer Antonio Dayo. The seafarer claimed total and permanent disability benefits under a collective bargaining agreement after he was medically repatriated and found unfit for sea duty. The case matters because it settles two recurring bar questions in overseas employment law: whether a seafarer must first exhaust the grievance machinery before suing, and how the labor tribunals weigh the company-designated physician's disability grading against the seafarer's own physician's finding of total permanent disability.

Procedural History

Dayo filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for disability compensation, balance of sick wages, damages, attorney's fees, and collective bargaining agreement benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding total and permanent disability benefits of 118,800 dollars under the collective bargaining agreement, plus moral and exemplary damages of 100,000 pesos and attorney's fees of ten percent of the monetary award, while dismissing the sick wage claim as paid and granting a partial attorney's lien to a law firm. Both parties appealed. The National Labor Relations Commission modified the decision, deleting the damages and the attorney's lien award but affirming the disability award. The Commission denied reconsideration. Petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, raising grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

On 1 June 2010, Southfield Agencies hired Dayo as second deck officer on the vessel Thor Pioneer for a six-month contract. As a member of the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines, his contract was covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the International Maritime Employers Committee.

On 30 October 2010, while on duty, Dayo pulled a mooring rope and suddenly felt pain in his lower back and abdomen. He was treated in Singapore and declared fit to return to the vessel. On 25 November 2010, persistent pain sent him to a medical centre in Darwin, Australia, where the physician found his symptoms vague and required further investigation. He was medically repatriated on 27 November 2010. In Manila, the company-designated physician and collaborating specialists diagnosed him with epididymitis, spondylolisthesis, prostatitis, gastritis, and other conditions, and he underwent a long series of examinations and procedures.

On 5 July 2011, the company-designated physician reported that the disc problem with stenosis and neurogenic bladder was work-related and gave a disability grade of 8 under the POEA Contract. On 20 July 2011, Dayo's independent physician found him physically unfit to return to work and assessed his disability as total permanent. The Labor Arbiter and the Commission both ruled for Dayo, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the complaint despite the seafarer's failure to conclude grievance proceedings under the collective bargaining agreement.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in affirming the award of total and permanent disability benefits of 118,800 dollars.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended, provides:

Section 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damage.

This provision supplies the jurisdictional basis for the Labor Arbiter to hear the seafarer's money claims notwithstanding the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that petitioners could not raise lack of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. A party cannot change his theory of the case on appeal, and higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised below. Petitioners themselves had admitted the seafarer's union membership and his resort to grievance proceedings in their position paper. At any rate, the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the money claims under Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, and petitioners had submitted to that jurisdiction by actively participating in the proceedings.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the award. Factual findings of the labor tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. The Commission found that the seafarer's work-related illness had so decreased the dexterity of his extremities that his trunk lost more than half its lifting capacity, rendering him unable to perform his duties as a seafarer. His disability was therefore total and permanent, and the full amount under the collective bargaining agreement was due.

Doctrine

A party may not change his theory of the case on appeal; defenses not raised before the labor tribunals cannot be ventilated for the first time before the Supreme Court. Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, and active participation in the proceedings amounts to submission to that jurisdiction. Factual findings of the labor tribunals, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Court. Where a work-related illness renders a seafarer permanently unfit for sea service, his disability is total and permanent, and he is entitled to the benefits under the governing collective bargaining agreement.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed; the seafarer prevailed and recovered total and permanent disability benefits of 118,800 dollars.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a party cannot change his theory of the case on appeal, and labor tribunals have jurisdiction over a seafarer's money claims regardless of an unfinished grievance procedure. Examiners use this case to test exhaustion of administrative remedies, jurisdiction over overseas workers' claims, and the finality of labor tribunals' factual findings.