Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83387:57487&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:13:19+00:00

Document:
RICARDO A. DALUSONG, Petitioner, v. EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., NORFIELD OFFSHORE AS, AND/OR CAPT. LEOPOLDO T. ARCILLAR, AND COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
This petition for review1 assails the 29 June 2012 Decision2 and the 26 September 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123767. The Court of Appeals nullified the Decision4 dated 12 August 2011 and the Resolution (sic) dated 25 October 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 05-000397-11, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s assignment of grade 11 disability to petitioner.
Private respondents hired petitioner as Able Seaman on board their vessel MV Malene Ostervold with a basic salary of US$800 per month. The duration of the contract of employment was for 2½ months.5 Petitioner boarded the vessel on 18 November 2009. On 13 December 2009, while petitioner was drilling to attach an overboard safety equipment on the vessel, a sudden swell caused some movement of the vessel. As a result, one of the crew fell directly on petitioner, inflicting injury on petitioner’s right foot. Petitioner was brought to the St. Joseph Medical Center in Houston, Texas, where he was diagnosed with fractured ankle and his foot was placed in cast. On 23 December 2009, petitioner was repatriated to the Philippines for further examination and medical treatment.
Petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint against private respondents, claiming disability benefits, sick wages, damages, and attorney’s fees. Petitioner maintained that he is entitled to full disability benefits of US$80,000, while private respondents insisted that petitioner is only entitled to US$12,551 based on the disability assessment of the company-designated doctor.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents. Citing Section 20 B (2) and (6) of the 2000 POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels (also called the “POEA Standard Employment Contract” or “POEA-SEC”), the Labor Arbiter ruled that “the determination of the proper payment of disability benefits requires two factors: (1) that the assessment is issued by the company-designated physician, and (2) the corresponding equivalent of the assessment as issued by the company-designated physician under the Schedule of Disability Allowances found in the POEA Contract.”9 The Labor Arbiter did not give probative value to the medical report presented by petitioner for the following reasons: (1) the doctor who issued the report is not the company-designated doctor mandated under the POEA-SEC; (2) the medical report does not show the manner by which the examination was conducted; and (3) the medical report dated 2 October 2010 was made almost four months after petitioner had stopped his medical consultations with the company-designated doctor, during which period petitioner could have committed acts which might have aggravated his condition. Besides, the Labor Arbiter stated that both the company-designated doctor and petitioner’s doctor found petitioner to be suffering from partial permanent disability.
On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision dated 12 August 2011, modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC held that under the POEA-SEC, petitioner is entitled to US$60,000 as permanent and total disability compensation, plus 10% of the judgment award as attorney’s fees.
Based on the findings of petitioner’s doctor, the NLRC ruled that a grade 1 disability rating is more appropriate considering the injury suffered by petitioner. Permanent disability means the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days. The NLRC noted that even after the lapse of seven months from the time petitioner was repatriated for injuries sustained, petitioner was still unable to resume his usual duties and responsibilities. Thus, petitioner is considered to be totally and permanently unfit to perform his usual duties and responsibilities. However, the NLRC did not sustain the US$80,000 disability benefits claimed by petitioner in the absence of a CBA supporting such claim. Instead, the NLRC ruled that petitioner is only entitled to the US$60,000 disability benefits provided under the POEA-SEC.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Correction of the NLRC Decision dated 12 August 2011, alleging that he is entitled to US$80,000 disability benefits pursuant to the Norwegian ASO-AMOSUP CBA. The NLRC noted that there is no evidence from the records that petitioner is entitled to US$80,000 disability benefits based on the alleged ASO-AMOSUP CBA. However, the NLRC noted that in their Rejoinder, private respondents admitted that under the applicable CBA, the maximum amount of disability benefits to a seafarer is US$70,000 and not US$80,000. With this admission, the NLRC concluded that petitioner is entitled to an award of permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$70,000 under the provision of the ASO-AMOSUP CBA. Thus, in its 25 October 2011 Decision, NLRC modified its previous decision and directed private respondents to pay petitioner the amount of US$70,000 as disability benefits plus 10% attorney’s fees. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals ruled that it is the company-designated doctor who initially determines the degree of disability of petitioner. However, if petitioner disagrees with the company doctor’s disability rating, petitioner may consult a doctor of his own choice. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s observation that both the company doctor and petitioner’s doctor found petitioner to be suffering from partial permanent disability. However, the Court of Appeals also noted that petitioner’s doctor added in his report that petitioner is “unfit for seaduty in whatever capacity as seaman,” which in effect diagnosed petitioner with total permanent disability. The Court of Appeals further noted that petitioner’s doctor failed to indicate in his report the procedures or tests conducted to properly diagnose petitioner’s condition. In contrast, the company-designated doctor conducted several medical tests and examinations in a span of six months, which included: ambulation and squatting test, squatting and ascending stairs test, left ankle flexing test, and weight bearing test. Only after all the tests were conducted did the company-designated doctor finally issue a Medical Certificate giving petitioner a final disability rating of grade 11. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that in the absence of adequate tests and examinations to support his medical report, the findings of petitioner’s doctor cannot prevail over that of the company-designated doctor, whose thorough findings were supported by multiple tests and examinations on petitioner.
The Court of Appeals cited Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta,12 which held that if the medical treatment lasted more than 120 days with no declaration of the seafarer’s permanent disability by the company-designated doctor because further medical attention is still required, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. In this case, the Court of Appeals observed that petitioner’s medical examination and treatment lasted for 180 days, after which the company-designated doctor found petitioner to be suffering from total partial disability with a final disability rating of grade 11. Thus, the Court of Appeals nullified the NLRC Decisions dated 12 August 2011 and 25 October 2011, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s assignment of grade 11 disability to petitioner. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the award of attorney’s fees is unwarranted since there was no showing that private respondents acted in bad faith.
4. Respondents had not acted in bad faith as to warrant the award of attorney’s fees.
In this case, the company-designated doctor gave petitioner a final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities of “Grade 11- complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position.”13 Petitioner disagreed with this assessment and consulted a physician of his own choice, Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who found petitioner to be suffering from “PARTIAL PERMANENT DISABILITY,” and “is UNFIT FOR SEADUTY in whatever capacity as seaman.”14 Based on Dr. Escutin’s assessment, petitioner then claimed that he is entitled to full disability benefits of US$80,000, while private respondents insisted that petitioner is only entitled to US$12,551 based on the disability assessment of the company-designated doctor.
Section 20(B)(3)15 of the POEA-SEC provides that “[i]f a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment [of the company-designated doctor], a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer,” and “[t]he third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.” In this case, there was no third doctor appointed by both parties whose decision would be binding on the parties. Hence, it is up to the labor tribunal and the courts to evaluate and weigh the merits of the medical reports of the company-designated doctor and the seafarer’s doctor.16 The Labor Arbiter did not give probative value to the medical report issued by petitioner’s doctor primarily because there was no evidence of tests and examinations conducted to support his medical report. On the other hand, the NLRC ruled that “[t]he findings of [petitioner’s] doctor, who gave him Grade 1 Disability rating is more appropriate and applicable to the injury suffered by [petitioner].”17 The Court of Appeals gave more credence to the findings of the company-designated doctor, which were supported by multiple tests and examinations on petitioner, compared to the medical report of petitioner’s doctor which was not supported by adequate tests and examinations.
ART. 192. Permanent and total disability.
Just because the seafarer is unable to perform his job and is undergoing medical treatment for more than 120 days does not automatically entitle the seafarer to total and permanent disability compensation.26 In this case, petitioner’s medical treatment lasted more than 120 days but less than 240 days, after which the company-designated doctor gave petitioner a final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities of “grade 11 - complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position.” Thus, before the maximum 240-day medical treatment period expired, petitioner was issued a final disability grade 11 which is merely equivalent to a permanent partial disability, since under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only those classified under grade 1 are considered total and permanent disability. Clearly, petitioner is only entitled to permanent partial disability compensation, since his condition cannot be considered as permanent total disability.
We likewise agree with the Court of Appeals in deleting the award of attorney’s fees. Private respondents were justified in insisting that petitioner is only entitled to US$12,551 compensation for his grade 11 disability. There was no bad faith on the part of private respondents which would warrant the award of attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 29 June 2012 Decision and the 26 September 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123767.
Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,* Reyes,** and Leonen, JJ., concur.
** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1763 dated 26 August 2014 in relation to Special Order No. 1776 dated 28 August 2014.
2 Rollo, pp. 102-115. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, concurring.
10 Under the schedule of disability allowances in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, a grade 11 disability is entitled to US$7,465 (US$50,000 x 14.93%). However, the Labor Arbiter ruled that since private respondents have admitted in their pleadings that under the CBA, petitioner is entitled to US$12,551 for his grade 11 disability, then this is tantamount to an admission against interest. Thus, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner is entitled to US$12,551 disability benefits plus attorney’s fees. In their position paper to the NLRC, respondents stated that since petitioner has disability grade 11, then he is entitled to US$12,551 (i.e. 14.93% multiplied to the maximum allowable benefit of US$70,000 as provided in the CBA). Id. at 263.
12 G.R. No. 177578, 25 January 2012, 664 SCRA 134.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a port-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.
16Ison v. Crewserve, Inc., G.R. No. 173951, 16 April 2012, 669 SCRA 481; Maunlad Transport, Inc. and/or Nippon Merchant Marine Company, Ltd., Inc. v. Manigo, Jr., 577 Phil. 319 (2008).
20 G.R. No. 186509, 29 July 2013, 702 SCRA 467.
Based on the physical examination and supported by laboratory examinations, he sustained injury while working. A fellow seaman fell on him while he was drilling some attachment for MOB. He broke his right ankle as a result of the incident. In Houston, Texas, USA, he had x-ray which showed he sustained a broken lateral malleolous, right [foot] which was reduced and fix[ed] with a cast. He was repatriated to Manila for further recuperation. He was in cast for almost 3 months and had therapy for the following months of sick leave. He sustained a broken bone on the ankle which is important in walking and standing. The ankle joint is form[ed] by three bones which has (sic) to be in good alignment to have a good ambulation. In his case, one bone the lateral side of the ankle was broken which was not align[ed] to its former anatomical location. This will result in instability on walking and standing. It will also cause early arthritic changes to the joint that will be manifested by on and off ankle pain. The patient will not be able to sustain prolong standing and carrying heavy weight without feeling of pain on his right ankle. He is not anymore physically fit to do strenuous job of a seaman.
He is given a PARTIAL PERMANENT DISABILITY. He is UNFIT FOR SEADUTY in whatever capacity as a SEAMAN.
23 See Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and/or Dela Cruz v. Velasquez (591 Phil. 839 ), where the Court held that the findings of the company-designated physician, who regularly monitored and treated the seafarer, and outlined his progress over a period of several months in several reports, deserve more credence than the single medical report of the seafarer’s doctor, who treated or examined the seafarer only once.
24 588 Phil. 895 (2006).
26Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 191903, 19 June 2013, 699 SCRA 197; Santiago v. Pacbasin ShipManagement, Inc., G.R. No. 194677, 18 April 2012, 670 SCRA 271.

References: v. 
 v. 

ART. 192
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.