Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83791:58331&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:15:09+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014 - BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINE, AND MS. CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, Petitioners, v. JOEL P. HIPE, JR., Respondent.
BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINE, AND MS. CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, Petitioners, v. JOEL P. HIPE, JR., Respondent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Amended Decision2 dated May 2, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated December 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 115888 which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated March 17, 2010 and the Resolution5 dated June 22, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. OFW(M) 02-02484-09 denying the claim for disability benefits of respondent Joel P. Hipe, Jr. (Hipe).
Unconvinced, respondents filed an appeal43 to the NLRC.
In a Decision44 dated March 17, 2010, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA Ruling and dismissed Hipe’s complaint for permanent disability compensation.
The CA resolved to hear the parties in an oral argument on the issue of whether or not Hipe was repatriated on account of injuries sustained while on board the vessel or on account of expiration of contract.55 After the parties were heard and the required memoranda were filed, the CA issued an Amended Decision56 dated May 2, 2012 setting aside its January 31, 2011 Decision and the NLRC’s March 17, 2010 Decision and June 22, 2010 Resolution. In effect, the LA’s May 29, 2009 Decision granting Hipe’s claim for permanent disability compensation, sick wages, damages and attorney’s fees was reinstated.
The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in granting Hipe’s petition for certiorari, thereby setting aside the NLRC Decision dismissing the complaint and adjudging Hipe’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits.
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in granting Hipe’s certiorari petition since the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for permanent disability benefits for Hipe’s failure to establish his claim through substantial evidence.
In the present case, Hipe was made to continuously perform work aboard the vessel beyond his six-month contract without the benefit of a formal contract. Considering that any extension of his employment is discretionary on the part of respondents and that the latter offered no explanation why Hipe was not repatriated when his contract expired on June 5, 2008, the CA correctly ruled that he was still under the employ of respondents when he sustained an injury on June 22, 2008. Consequently, the injury suffered by Hipe was a work-related injury and his eventual repatriation on August 5, 2008, for which he was treated/rehabilitated can only be considered as a medical repatriation.
The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of [the seafarer’s] contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. x x x Thus, the complaint should have been dismissed, for without a binding third opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician stands x x x.
Whatever his reasons might have been, [the seafarer’s] disregard of the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA cannot and should not be tolerated and allowed to stand, lest it encourage a similar defiance. x x x The third-doctor-referral provision of the POEA-SEC, it appears to us, has been honored more in the breach than in the compliance. This is unfortunate considering that the provision is intended to settle disability claims voluntarily at the parties’ level where the claims can be resolved more speedily than if they were brought to court.
In light of the contrasting diagnoses of the company-designated physician and Hipe’s personal doctor, Hipe filed his complaint before the NLRC but prematurely did so without any regard to the conflict-resolution procedure under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Thus, consistent with Philippine Hammonia, the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician ought to be upheld.
In fine, given that Hipe’s permanent disability was not established through substantial evidence for the reasons above-stated, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for permanent disability benefits, thereby warranting the reversal of the CA’s contrary ruling. Verily, while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the POEA-SEC, when the evidence presented then negates compensability, the claim for disability benefits must necessarily fail,75 as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 2, 2012 and the Resolution dated December 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115888 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Joel P. Hipe, Jr.’s claim for disability benefits is DENIED.
Velasco, Jr.,* Leonardo-De Castro, (Acting Chairperson),** Del Castillo,*** and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1870 dated November 4, 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1861 dated November 4, 2014.
*** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1862 dated November 4, 2014.
2 Id. at 44-51. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
4Id. at 253-269. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles with Commissioners Perlita B. Velasco and Romeo L. Go, concurring.
6 See Contract of Employment; id. at 106.
7 “US$709.00” in the Contract of Employment; id.
8 Id. See also id. at 272.
9 Id. at 48 and 258.
10 Id. at 45-47 and 255.
11 Id. at 255. See also the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Wilanie Romeo-Dacanay, M.D.; id. at 213.
13 See 6th Report dated October 2, 2008; id. at 107.
15 Id. at 161. See also the 7th & Final Report dated October 9, 2008; id. at 108.
17 See Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Venancio P. Garduce, Jr. M.D., F.P.O.A.; id. at 229.
19 Id. at 255. See also the Medical Certificate dated February 25, 2009 issued by Dr. Venancio P. Garduce, Jr.; id. at 229.
20 See LA Decision; id. at 241.
27 ITF Seafarers: ITF Agreements. (Visited November 5, 2014).
32 See id. at 207-209.
33 See Position Paper for Respondents; id. at 99 and 102.
38 Id. at 241-251. Penned by Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog.
49 Not attached to the records of the case.
50 See CA Decision dated January 31, 2011; rollo, pp. 271-272.
54 See id. at 292-295.
64 See Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation, G.R. No. 203161, February 26, 2014.
66 Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
67 See Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 194758, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 587, 601.
69Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel, G.R. No. 195518, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 225, 237.
73 G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53.
75Francisco v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 190545, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 660, 667.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.