Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82924:56804&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:04:21+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 201072, April 02, 2014 - UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, Petitioners, v. GENEROSO E. SIBUG, Respondent.
UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, Petitioners, v. GENEROSO E. SIBUG, Respondent.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated July 29, 2011 and Resolution2 dated February 14, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 110757. The CA ruled that respondent seaman Generoso E. Sibug is twice entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
Sibug filed two complaints for disability benefits, illness allowance, damages and attorney’s fees against petitioners, docketed as follows: (1) NLRC NCR OFW (M)–08–08711–07, which was anchored on his Volendam injury, and NLRC NCR OFW (M)–08–08708–07, which was anchored on his Ryndam injury.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the claims in NLRC Case No. (M) NCR–08–08711–07. As regards the claims in NLRC NCR Case No. 08–08708–07, this Office holds that the complainant [Sibug] is entitled to disability benefits in the amount of US$10,075 which is the equivalent of the grade “10” disability issued by the company–designated physician.
or an aggregate amount of US$132,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, our Decision dated 8 December 2008 is hereby, SET ASIDE and the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 14 May 2008 is hereby, REINSTATED, granting disability benefits in the amount of US$10,075.00 which is equivalent to grade “10” disability issued by the company designated physician.
Later, the NLRC denied Sibug’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution16 dated July 31, 2009.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the Decision dated May 29, 2009 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. As prayed for, the NLRC Decision dated December 8, 2008 is hereby REINSTATED.
The CA ruled that Sibug was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days on account of his Volendam and Ryndam injuries. Thus, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for both injuries.
On February 14, 2012, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Essentially, the issues for our resolution are as follows: (1) whether Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits for his Volendam and Ryndam injuries and (2) whether he is entitled to attorney’s fees.
After our own review of the case, we find the petition partly meritorious. We rule that Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Volendam injury. But he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Ryndam injury and to attorney’s fees.
Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Volendam injury since he became already fit to work again as a seaman. He even admitted in his position paper that he was declared fit to work.20 He was also declared fit for sea service after his pre–employment medical examination when he sought reemployment with petitioners. The medical certificate21 declaring Sibug fit for sea service even bears his signature. And he was able to work again in the same capacity as waste handler in Ryndam. On this point, the Labor Arbiter’s ruling is amply supported by substantial evidence. On the other hand, the CA erred in ruling that Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for the injury he suffered at the Volendam. The facts clearly show that he is not.
The company–designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120–day or 240–day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods.
Paragraph (b) applies to Sibug’s case. The company–designated doctor failed to issue a certification with a definite assessment of the degree of Sibug’s disability for his Ryndam injury within 240 days.
However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company–designated physician.
As we said in Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol,24 the company–designated doctor must declare the seaman fit to work or assess the degree of his permanent disability.
In this case, Sibug was repatriated and arrived in the country on January 15, 2007 after his Ryndam injury. He had surgery on his injured hand. On September 7, 2007, the company–designated doctor issued a medical report that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete disability. But this medical report failed to state the degree of Sibug’s disability. Only in an email dated September 28, 2007, copy of which was attached as Annex 3 of petitioners’ position paper, was Sibug’s disability from his Ryndam injury classified as a grade 10 disability by the company–designated doctor. By that time, however, the 240–day extended period when the company–designated doctor must give the definite assessment of Sibug’s disability had lapsed. From January 15, 2007 to September 28, 2007 is 256 days. Hence, Sibug’s disability is already deemed permanent and total.
In Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta,25 we also affirmed the award of US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefit when after the lapse of 240 days there was no declaration of Lobusta’s permanent disability.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the Decision dated July 29, 2011 and Resolution dated February 14, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 110757. We render a new judgment and ORDER petitioners United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Holland America Line jointly and severally to pay respondent Generoso E. Sibug US$66,000 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment.
1 Rollo, pp. 31–45. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
4 CA rollo, p. 197.
6 CA rollo, p. 216.
8 CA rollo, p. 245.
10 CA rollo, pp. 189–194. Penned by Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido.
20 CA rollo, p. 196.
22 G.R. No. 195168, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 225, 233–234, citing C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 296, 315.
23 G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014, pp. 1, 11.
24 G.R. No. 186289, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 352, 382.
25 G.R. No. 177578, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 134, 147–148.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.