SOLPIA MARINE AND SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., AND MARINE KOREA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND FREDERICK I. ANTONIO, RESPONDENTS.
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
filed by Solpia Marine and Ship Management, Inc., (“petitioner Solpia”)
and Marine Korea (“petitioner Marine”), imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth
Division (“NLRC”) for issuing: 1) the Decision dated 6 June 2011[2] (“assailed Decision”) which affirmed the Decision issued by Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr. dated 27 January 2011;[3] and the Resolution dated 28 December 2011[4] (“assailed Resolution”) which denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
The undisputed facts are as follows: on 6 July 2009,
petitioner Solpia, a local manning agency, hired Frederick I. Antonio
(“private respondent Antonio”) as Bosun for the vessel M/V World
Dynasty, owned by the principal, petitioner Marine. Private respondent
Antonio’s Contract of Employment[6]
was for a period of 9 months, with a basic salary of US$ 680.00 per
month excluding overtime and other benefits. Private respondent Antonio
joined the M/V World Dynasty on 19 July 2009.
Private respondent Antonio alleged that on 14 October 2009,
while performing his work duties, he suffered an accident which resulted
to injury to his spinal column, and back pain. Private respondent
Antonio reported his condition to the ship’s Master. A day after the
accident, or on 15 October 2009, private respondent Antonio was examined
in Anyer, Indonesia, where he was diagnosed with “LBP e.c. Spondylosis of Lumbar Spine; Multiple Gall Bladder Stone; Fatty Liver.”[7]
Due to private respondent Antonio’s injury, he was repatriated
and he arrived in the Philippines on 19 October 2009. Upon arrival,
private respondent Antonio had several medical examinations and
treatment (i.e., x-ray examination on 20 October 2009 at Manila Doctor’s
Hospital;[8] medical examination on 9 November 2009 by Dr. Alvin Amador [“Dr. Amador”] at Nazarenus College Foundation Hospital;[9]
medical examination on 2 December 2009 by Dr. Amador at Nazarenus
College Foundation Hospital;[10] medical examination on 3 December 2009 by
Dr. George Y. Hernandez [“Dr. Hernandez”] at Ippokratis Diagnostic
Services Center Inc.;[11] medical examination on 14 December 2009 by Dr. Amador at Nazarenus College Foundation Hospital;[12] medical examination on 29 June 2010 by Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto Jr., [“Dr. Jacinto”] at Sta. Teresita General Hospital).[13]
On 11 December 2009, private respondent Antonio executed the Receipt and Release[14] in which he acknowledged receipt of Php 50,107.52 as full and final settlement of his illness allowance.
On 13 May 2010, private respondent Antonio filed the Complaint[15]
with the Labor Arbiter against petitioners Solpia, Marine, and
individual respondent Arturo J. Delgado Jr. The Complaint prayed for:
permanent disability benefits, sick wages for 25 days, moral and
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and other benefits provided by law.
Private respondent Antonio alleged in his Position Paper[16]
before the Labor Arbiter: private respondent Antonio is entitled to
permanent disability benefits because he became permanently unfit for
work due to the severe injury in his spinal column, and his disability
lasted for more than 120 days; based on the 15 October 2009 medical
report (re: the medical treatment he received in Indonesia), private
respondent Antonio has “LBP e.c. Spondylosis of Lumbar Spine; Multiple Gall Bladder Stone; Fatty Liver;” the 20 October 2009 X-ray results of private respondent Antonio show that he was diagnosed with “Lumbar spondylosis, Schmorl’s nodes, Inferior L4 and L5 End Plates;”
private respondent Antonio’s medical record from the Nazarenus College
Foundation Hospital reveals that he is suffering from “Lumbar Spondylosis; R/O HNP L4, L5, L5-S1;”
conformably to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), private respondent Antonio is
entitled to permanent disability benefits of US$ 60,000.00 and a maximum
of 120 days sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage; petitioner
Solpia discontinued private respondent Antonio’s medical expenses and
treatment for a period of 25 days thus private Antonio is entitled to
the balance of his sickness allowance for 25 days; due to the bad faith
of petitioners in refusing to give private respondent Antonio’s benefits
under the law, petitioners are liable for moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners alleged in their Position Paper[17]
before the Labor Arbiter: individual respondent Arturo J. Delgado Jr.
is no longer connected with petitioners Solpia and Marine; private
respondent Antonio is not entitled to permanent disability benefits
because he was twice declared to be fit to work by Dr. Amador and Dr.
Hernandez within 120 days from his repatriation; under the POEA rules,
private respondent Antonio should first prove that he suffered from an
occupational disease to be compensable, however private respondent
Antonio has not proved that “lumbar spondylosis” was
work-related; petitioners Solpia and Marine already settled their
obligation to private respondent Antonio when they reimbursed him of his
medical expenses worth Php 54,807.52; petitioners’ medical
reimbursement to private respondent Antonio covered the period of 46
days from his repatriation to Manila until he was declared to be fit to
work, thus private respondent Antonio is no longer entitled to balance
of 25 days of his sick wages; private respondent Antonio executed the
Receipt and Release and acknowledged that he received Php 50,107.52 as
full and final settlement of his sickness allowance.
Private respondent Antonio alleged in the Reply[18]
before the Labor Arbiter: private respondent Antonio became permanently
unfit to work as a seafarer because his spinal injury was not cured,
and it worsened despite medical treatment of Dr. Amador and private
respondent Antonio’s independent medical orthopedic specialist, Dr.
Jacinto; the diagnosis made on 3 December 2009 by the company-designated
physician Dr. Hernandez, that private respondent Antonio was fit to
work, was belied by the more recent 14 December 2009 diagnosis by Dr.
Amador; private respondent Antonio’s medical certificate dated 14
December 2009 executed by Dr. Amador, showed that he was suffering from “disability due to low back pain;”
Dr. Hernandez, as the company-designated physician, could not be
expected to be a neutral and fair assessor of private respondent
Antonio’s medical condition.
Petitioners alleged in the Reply[19]
before the Labor Arbiter: private respondent Antonio’s own physician
found that private respondent Antonio was fit to work; under the
POEA-SEC, if a physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
company-designated physician’s assessment, the employer and the seafarer
may agree to appoint a third physician, whose decision shall be final
and binding on both parties; private respondent Antonio did not request
for the appointment of a third physician.
Private respondent Antonio alleged in the Rejoinder[20]
before the Labor Arbiter: the medical assessments by Dr. Amador and Dr.
Jacinto, both confirmed that private respondent Antonio became
permanently unfit to perform his seafaring duties; the POEA-SEC does not
exclusively provide that only the company-designated doctor could
assess and treat the injured seafarer.
Petitioners alleged in the Rejoinder[21]
before the Labor Arbiter: private respondent Antonio lied when he
alleged that Dr. Amador is the company-designated physician, becuase in
his affidavit, private respondent Antonio admitted that he went to Dr.
Amador on his own.
Petitioners also filed the Surrejoinder[22] which reiterated their arguments in the previous pleadings.
On 27 January 2011, the Labor Arbiter issued the Decision.[23] Its dispositive portion read:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent agency is
directed to pay the complainant of his disability benefit of SIXTY
THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($60,000.00). The rest of the claims are DISMISSED.SO ORDERED.
The Decision of the Labor Arbiter ruled: private respondent
Antonio’s injury was compensable because the same was incurred on 14
October 2009 while he was in the performance of his duties; Dr.
Jacinto’s diagnosis that private respondent Antonio became permanently
unfit, was more credible than the findings of the company-designated
physician, Dr. Hernandez; petitioners paid private respondent Antonio
his sickness allowance (i.e.,consultation fees, laboratory
examinations, medicines, etc.,) as evidenced by the Receipt and Release;
the Receipt and Release did not include permanent disability benefits,
thus petitioners are still liable to pay private respondent Antonio US$
60,000.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
Petitioners filed Memorandum of Appeal[24] before the public respondent NLRC. Private respondent Antonio filed Opposition to Notice of Appeal (Motion to Dismiss Appeal).[25]
On 6 June 2011, the NLRC issued the assailed Decision.[26] The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered DENYING the appeal for lack of merit. The Decision dated
January 27, 2011 rendered by Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr.
is AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.
The assailed Decision affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings that
private respondent Antonio’s sickness was work-related and thus
compensable, and that the medical diagnosis of Dr. Jacinto was more
accurate and reliable than the diagnosis of the company-designated
physician, Dr. Hernandez.
Petitioners filed the Motion for Reconsideration[27] before the NLRC. Private respondent Antonio filed Opposition (To Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration).[28] On 30 December 2011, the NLRC issued the assailed Resolution which denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, petitioners making the following assignment of errors:
I. THE DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
II. THE DECISION IS CONTRARY TO LAW.
The pivotal issue is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings that
petitioners are liable for permanent disability benefits to private
respondent Antonio.
THE PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS
Petitioners answer in the affirmative. The NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion in affirming the award of private respondent Antonio’s
permanent disability benefits.
The Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65[29]
thrusts private respondent Antonio’s evidence does not show that he is
entitled to permanent disability benefits. Private respondent Antonio’s
physician Dr. Jacinto, and the company-designated physician Dr.
Hernandez both certified that private respondent Antonio was fit to work
within 120 days from private respondent Antonio’s repatriation. Private
respondent Antonio did not follow POEA-SEC and jurisprudence which
provides that (a) only the company-designated physician can declare
whether a seafarer is fit to work, or the degree of his disability; (b)
the finding of the company-designated physician takes precedence over
the seafarer’s physician; (c) if the seafarer’s physician disagrees with
the finding of the Company physician, he should request for the
appointment of a third physician whose ruling shall be final. The NLRC’s
exclusive reliance on the medical findings of Dr. Jacinto was erroneous
because Dr. Jacinto was private respondent Antonio’s personal
physician, and is neither an independent physician, nor the
company-designated physician.
Petitioners filed Memorandum[30] reiterating the arguments in the Petition.
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
Private respondent Antonio answers in the negative. The NLRC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of permanent
disability benefits in favor of private respondent Antonio.
The Comment (To Petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari)[31]
parries: petitioners have not presented new evidence or arguments that
would justify the reversal or modification of the findings of both the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC; the findings and assessment of Dr.
Hernandez, the company-designated physician are biased and self-serving;
the findings of Dr. Jacinto takes precedence because he is credible,
independent, and a neutral assessor of private respondent Antonio’s
medical condition; the POEA-SEC does not exclusively provide that only
the company-designated physician could assess and treat the seafarers;
the law and jurisprudence recognize the right of the seafarer to choose
his own physician; in compensation cases, what is being compensated
under the law is not the gravity of the illness or injury, but the loss
of the seafarer’s capacity to obtain further sea employment and the
opportunity loss to earn income.
Private respondent Antonio filed Memorandum[32] reiterating the arguments in the Comment.
THE COURT’S RULING
We dismiss the Petition. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in awarding permanent disability benefits to private
respondent Antonio.
Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court alleges grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish
that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical,
arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to
be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33]
In this case, petitioners failed to substantiate their
imputation of grave abuse of discretion on the part the NLRC in issuing
the assailed Decision and Resolution.
Notably, both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter ruled that
private respondent Antonio was entitled to permanent disability benefits
due to private respondent Antonio’s injury (“spondylosis of lumbar spine”)
which he acquired in the performance of his work duties to petitioners.
Findings of fact made by Labor Arbiters and affirmed by the NLRC are
not only entitled to great respect, but even finality, and are
considered binding if the same are supported by substantial evidence.[34]
A careful review of the evidence, particularly the several
medical reports and assessments of private respondent Antonio’s
condition, shows that private respondent Antonio was entitled to
permanent disability benefits.
Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits
is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by
contract. The material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193
under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation
with Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the
Labor Code.[35]
Article 192 (c) of the Labor Code provides disabilities that are considered total and permanent:
(c) 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;(2) Complete loss of sight of both eyes;
(3) Loss of two limbs at or above the ankle or wrist;
(4) Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs;
(5) Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility or insanity; and
(6) Such cases as determined by the Medical Director of the System and approved by the Commission.
We note that private respondent Antonio’s disability was permanent
because he has been unable to work since 19 October 2009 to the present
or for more than 120 days. Thus, private respondent Antonio’s
disability which lasted more than 120 days was considered total and
permanent under Article 192 (c) 1.
Further, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
disability is intimately related to one’s earning capacity. The test to
determine its gravity is the impairment or loss of one’s capacity to
earn and not its mere medical significance. Permanent total disability
means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work
or work of a 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. It does not mean state of absolute helplessness but
inability to do substantially all material acts necessary to the
prosecution of a gainful occupation without serious discomfort or pain
and without material injury or danger to life.[36]
Permanent total disability does not mean a state of absolute
helplessness, but 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 any work which a person of similar mentality and attainment could do.[37] In disability compensation, it is not the injury per se which is compensated but the incapacity to work.[38]
In this case, private respondent Antonio’s medical reports
establish that he was entitled to permanent disability benefits. The
medical reports concerning private respondent Antonio, consistently
indicate that he suffers from “lumbar spondylosis.” Private
respondent Antonio’s personal physician Dr. Jacinto a specialist in
Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, particularly, diseases of the bones
and joints, characterized private respondent Antonio’s disability as
“total permanent.”[39] Thus,
between the findings made by Dr. Hernandez who is a general
practitioner, and Dr. Jacinto who is a specialist, we hold that the
findings of Dr. Jacinto are more credible. Thus, the NLRC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in giving more evidentiary weight to the
findings of Dr. Jacinto.
In view of the consistent findings that private respondent
Antonio suffers from back injuries which greatly restrict his seafarer
duties (i.e., bending, reaching, lifting heavy objects), we
agree that private respondent Antonio is entitled to permanent
disability benefits.
Private respondent Antonio manifests in his
Comment that petitioners already fully satisfied public respondent
NLRC’s award. Thus, we hold that petitioners’ payment to private
respondent Antonio of US$ 60,000.00 is proper.
We DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] C.A. Rollo, pp. 3-202.
[2] Annex A to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 18-26.
[3] Annex J to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 117-123.
[4] Annex B to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[5] Annex M to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 185-192.
[6] Annex A of Private respondent Antonio’s Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 53.
[7] Annex C of Private Respondent Antonio’s Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 55.
[8] Annex D of Private Respondent Antonio’s Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 56.
[9] Annex E of Private Respondent Antonio’s Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 57.
[10] Annex 1 of Petitioners’ Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 67.
[11] Annex 2 of Petitioners’ Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 68.
[12] Annex E-1 of Private Respondent Antonio’s Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 58.
[13] Annex A of Private Respondent Antonio’s Rejoinder, C.A. Rollo, p. 110.
[14] Annex 5 of Petitioners’ Position Paper, C.A. Rollo, p. 71.
[15] Annex C of the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[16] Annex C-1 of the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 35-58.
[17] Annex D to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 59-71.
[18] Annex E to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 72-89.
[19] Annex F to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 90-93.
[20] Annex G to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 94-110.
[21] Annex H to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 111-116.
[22] Annex I to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 124-126.
[23] Supra note 3.
[24] Annex K to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 127-168.
[25] Annex L to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 169-184.
[26] Supra note 2.
[27] Supra note 5.
[28] Annex N to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 193-199.
[29] Supra note 1.
[30] C.A. Rollo, pp. 275-289.
[31] C.A. Rollo, pp. 242-272.
[32] C.A. Rollo, pp. 291-305.
[33] Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc., v. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 155306, 28 August 2013
citing Abedes v. Court of Appeals, 562 Phil. 262, 276 (2007).
[34] Ibid., citing Spouses Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 354 Phil. 918, 931 (1998).
[35] Magsaysay Maritime Corp., et al., v. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 186180, 22 March 2010.
[36] Seagull Maritime Corp. et al., v. Jaycee Dee et al., G.R. No. 165156, 2 April 2007 citing Bejerano v.
Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 84777, 30 January 1992, 205 SCRA 598.
[37] GSIS v. Cadiz, G.R. No. 154093, 8 July 2003.
[38] Supra note 36.
[39] Supra note 13.