Multinational Ship Management, Inc./Singa Ship Agencies, Pte. Ltd. and Alvin Hiteroza Vs. Lolet B. Briones G.R. No. 239793. January 27, 2020

Multinational Ship Management, Inc./Singa Ship Agencies, Pte. Ltd. and Alvin Hiteroza Vs. Lolet B. Briones G.R. No. 239793. January 27, 2020
Peralta
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12802/
When the vessel arrived in Hungary on July 23, 2015, Briones was sent to a hospital. She was diagnosed to have lower back pain and muscle strain and was prescribed pain relievers. She rejoined the vessel and went back to her normal routine, but her back pain worsened. She was again disembarked when the vessel arrived in Passau, Germany on July 29, 2015. After undergoing X-ray and MRI on her back, she was suspected to have lumbar spine problem. She was prescribed with medicines to alleviate the pain and was advised to have a thorough check-up. As the vessel had to leave the port, she was not able to undergo further check-up.
== Issues ==
DID THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT SERIOUS, GRAVE AND PATENT ERRORS, AS WELL AS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE NLRC, THEREBY AWARDING RESPONDENT FULL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND OTHER MONEY CLAIMS DESPITE CLEAR NON-ENTITLEMENT THERETO, CONTRARY TO THE RELEVANT LAW, RULE AND JURISPRUDENCE?
A perusal of the Medical Report issued by Dr. Celino, the company-designated physician, would reveal that it failed to state a definite assessment of Briones' fitness or unfitness to work, or to give a disability rating of her injury. As it is, the report lacked substantiation on the medical condition of Briones concerning her fitness to return to the type of work she was performing at the time of her injury. What was clear in the medical report is that Briones has not fully recovered from her injury as she "was advised to continue home exercises and that pain is foreseen to improve with time" and that she has to undergo "15 Physical Therapy Sessions." With such statements, Dr. Celino, in effect, admits that the pain experienced by Briones is still subsisting and that it is thru the passage of time that it was expected to improve.
Unlike Dr. Celino's medical report which merely describes the MRI of the Lumbosacral spine as "unremarkable", Dr. Magtira's report on the MRI of the Thoraco-Lumbar Spine (Non-Contrast) conducted on Briones on February 4, 2016, contained the following impression: "L4-L5: Mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing due to disc bulge; L5-SJ: Mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing due to disc bulge and facet hypertrophy; Facet arthrosis and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy; Mild lumbar curvature to the right may be positional versus mild lumbar dextroscoliosis; Small non-specific pelvic fluid; Small uterine myomas." Consistent with the result of the said MRI, Dr. Magtira explained that, "The significance of this posterior bulge of the degenerated disc is that this is the area where the nerves run that supply the extremities. This patient has been complaining of back pain. The vast majority of patients responded well to non-surgical treatment though. Probably the most important of which is time, that is to say, that no matter what is done, most cases of acute back and neck pain slowly resolve if given enough time to get better." He adds that, "If a long term and more permanent result are desired however, she should refrain from activities producing torsional stress on the back and those that require repetitive bending and lifting. Things Ms. Briones is expected to do as a Sea woman."
Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court, thus, finds Dr. Magtira 's 
assessment as exhaustive and more reflective of the medical condition of
 Briones especially so since both medical reports acknowledged the 
passage of time as a key factor in resolving the back pain experienced 
by Briones. A total disability does not require that the employee be 
completely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his or her usual work and earn from it. On the other hand, a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. What
 is crucial is whether the employee who suffers from disability could 
still perform his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred.'''
== Decisions ==
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED
 for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated January 12, 2018 and the
 Resolution dated May 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
 151642 are AFFIRMED in toto.