|
JOELSON O.
ILORETA, Petitioner, – versus – PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. and NORBULK
SHIPPING U.K., LTD., Respondents. |
G.R.
NO. 183908 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: December
4, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Joelson O.
Iloreta (petitioner) was on February 22, 2002 hired by Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. and Norbulk Shipping U.K., Ltd. (respondents) as Able Seaman on
board the vessel M/S Nautilus for a period
of nine months with a basic monthly salary of US$558 exclusive of overtime pay
and other benefits. He was a member of
the Associated Marine Officer and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines which had a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with respondents.
On July 12,
2002, while pushing drums full of caustic soda, petitioner complained of chest
pains. He later noticed that whenever he
exerted physical effort, the pains persisted.
When the vessel was docked at the port of Santos, Brazil on August 2,
2002, he was referred to the Centro Medico Internacional and was diagnosed by
Dr. Heraldo de Carvalho to be suffering from “Angina pectoris; Arterial hypertension”
which he described as “a serious heart disease, involving life risk.” On the doctor’s recommendation, petitioner was
repatriated to the Philippines on August 16, 2002, with medical escort, to
undergo further “heart investigation (cinecoronarioangiography) and surgery if
necessary.”[1]
Petitioner was
confined on August 18, 2002 at St. Luke’s Medical Center under the care of respondents’
company-designated physician Natalio G. Alegre (Dr. Alegre). He underwent “coronary
angiography” and “coronary angioplasty” on August 24, 2002 and September 16,
2002, respectively,[2]
the expenses for which, as well as his sickness allowance for 120 days, were
paid by respondents.[3]
After undergoing
post-surgical check-ups, petitioner was on December 17, 2002 cleared by Dr.
Alegre “to return to former work as a seaman with maintenance medications
of Plavix 75 mg, and Lipitor 10 mg” and in was fact issued a confirmatory
certification declaring him “Fit to resume former work.”[4]
His chest
pains and dizziness during physical exertion having persisted, petitioner
sought a second opinion from an
independent cardiologist, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo) of the Philippine
Heart Center who, on April 22, 2003, diagnosed him to be suffering from
Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease
Coronary Artery Disease, one vessel
(left anterior descending artery)
Impediment Grade
IV (68.66%).[5]
(Underscoring supplied)
And petitioner
was declared “unfit to resume work as seaman
in any capacity” as “his illness is considered work-aggravated”
to which regular “lifetime medication to control his blood
pressure [and] to prevent reocclusion of his coronaries.”[6]
Petitioner thereupon
asked respondents for full permanent disability benefits, but was unsuccessful,
hence, he filed on July 14, 2003 a complaint to recover permanent total disability
compensation, damages and attorney’s fees before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Office in Quezon City.[7]
Respondents
maintained that petitioner is not entitled to disability benefits in view of
the company-designated physician’s certification of fitness to resume former
work.[8]
The parties
later agreed to refer petitioner for examination by a third physician, Dr. Reynaldo P. Fajardo (Dr. Fajardo) of the
Philippine Heart Center[9]
who, on July 20, 2004, issued a Medical Certificate[10]
with findings similar to those of Dr. Vicaldo’s, viz:
Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease / Coronary
Artery Disease,
Chronic Stable Angina, Single Vessel Involvement
(Left Anterior Descending [A]rtery), S/P Percutaneous Coronary Intervention,
Class II-III
Impediment Grade IV (68.66%)
(Underscoring supplied),
after noting
that petitioner’s “history of effort-related angina since
July 12, 2002 [has] persisted up to
the present”; that “[d]espite Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
done on [him], several factors predisposing to recurrence of coronary
events can be aggravated by [his]
continued employment”; and that his illness is “work-related
stress.”[11]
By Decision
of June 23, 2005, Labor Arbiter Daniel J. Cajilig found for petitioner, awarding
US$60,000 disability compensation to petitioner, in this wise:
[S]ince it has not been denied that complainant
is a member of the seaman’s Union, perforce, his claims must be based on the
provision of the existing CBA which provides as follows:
20.1.4. Compensation for Disability
20.1.4.1.
A seafarer who suffers permanent
disability as a result of work-related
illness or from an injury as a result of an accident regardless of fault
but excluding injuries caused by seafarer’s willful act, whilst serving
on board, including accidents and work-related illness
occurring whilst traveling to or from the ship, and whose ability
to work is reduced as a result
thereof, shall, in addition to sick pay, be entitled
to compensation according to the provisions
of this Agreement. x x x.
20.1.4.2. The degree of disability which the Employer,
subject to this Agreement, is liable to pay shall be determined by a doctor
appointed by the Employer. If a
doctor appointed by seafarer and his
x x x x
20.1.4.4.
The applicable disability compensation
shall be in accordance with the degree
of disability and rate of compensation indicated
in the table hereunder, to wit:
Degree of Permanent Disability Rate of Compensation
% Ratings Officers
US$ US$
100 60,000 80,000 75 45,000 60,000
60
36,000 48,000
50
30,000 40,000
40
24,000 32,000
30
18,000 24,000
20 12,000 16,000
10 6,000 8,000
with
any differences, including less than 10% disability,
to
be pro rata.
20.1.5. Permanent Medical Unfitness – A seafarer whose disability
is assessed at 50% or more
under the POEA Employment Contract shall, for the purpose of this
paragraph, be regarded as permanently unfit
for further sea service in any capacity
and entitled to 100% compensation, i.e., US$80,000.00 for officers
and US$60,000.00 for ratings. Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less
than 50% disability under the Contract but certified as permanently unfit for
further sea service in any capacity by the company doctor, shall also be entitled
to 100% compensation.[12] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
And the
Labor Arbiter also awarded petitioner attorney’s fees in the amount of US$6,000
on finding that he was compelled to engage a lawyer to pursue his claims. Thus the Labor Arbiter disposed:
WHEREFORE,
prescinding from the foregoing considerations, the complainant is hereby
ordered paid his total disability compensation by the respondents, jointly and
severally in the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND (US$60,000.00) US DOLLARS plus
10% of the total monetary awards as and for attorney’s fees in the amount of
US$6,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of actual
payment.
The
rest of the claims are denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[13] (Emphasis in the original)
The NLRC affirmed
the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification by reducing the award of attorney’s
fees to US$1,000. Thus it disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is
hereby dismissed. The DECISION of the
Labor Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that the award
of attorney’s fee is reduced to US$1,000.[14] (Underscoring supplied)
Their motion
for reconsideration having been denied, respondents brought the case on Certiorari
to the Court of Appeals which, by Decision[15]
of June 28, 2007, affirmed with modification the NLRC decision by
reducing the disability compensation to US$34,330 and deleting the award of attorney’s
fees in this wise:
While agreeing to the factual findings of the
NLRC, we are constrained to reduce the amount of the award for disability
benefits following Dr. Fajardo’s finding of Impediment Grade IV (68.66%) in
relation to the Schedule of Disability under Section 32 of the POEA Standard
Contract for Seaman. Under the said
schedule, Iloreta with an Impediment Grade IV is entitled to US$50,000.00 x 68.66%
or the amount equivalent to US$34,330.00.
As regards the award of Attorney’s fees, the
same must be deleted for the NLRC failed to show any basis for its award of
US$1,000.00. We must not forget that the policy as it
stands is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. This is simply not awarded every time a party
wins a suit. Besides, the petitioners
were never amiss in their responsibility to Iloreta. In fact, they shouldered all the expenses for
the angiogram and angioplasty plus the allowance equivalent to 120 days.[16] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioner’s
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision having
been denied by Resolution of July 15, 2008,[17]
he filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari,
faulting the Court of Appeals in not upholding (a) the permanent total disability
compensation awarded to him by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC, and (b)
the award by the Labor Arbiter of attorney’s fees.
Respondents
counter that while petitioner’s disability is “permanent,” the same “is only
partial” since the third
doctor, Dr. Fajardo, found him to have only a Grade IV disability impediment of
68.66%. They thus conclude that the
appellate court’s decision “has sufficient factual and legal justification.”[18]
The
petition is impressed with merit.
The Court
has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to Filipino
seafarers in keeping with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid
and full protection to labor,[19]
it holding that the notion of disability is intimately related to the worker’s
capacity to earn, what is compensated being not his injury or illness but his
inability to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity, hence, disability
should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of
earning capacity.[20]
Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission[21] summarizes
the laws and jurisprudence on the application of the Labor Code concept of disability
compensation to the case of seafarers, viz:
The standard employment contract for
seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247
to “secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract
workers and ensure compliance therewith” and to “promote and protect the
well-being of Filipino workers overseas.” Even without this provision, a contract of
labor is so impressed with public interest that the New Civil Code expressly
subjects it to “the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining,
strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor
and similar subjects” (Art. 1700).
Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code
concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. x x x.
x x x x
There are three kinds of disability benefits
under the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 626: (1) temporary total
disability, (2) permanent total disability, and (3) permanent partial
disability. Section 2, Rule VII of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code differentiates the disabilities
as follows:
Sec. 2. Disability.–
(a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness
the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous
period not exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of
these Rules.
(b) A
disability is total and permanent
if as a result of the injury or
sickness the employee is unable to
perform any gainful occupation for a continuous
period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise
provided for in Rule X of these Rules.
(c) A
disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness
the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his
body.
In Vicente
v. ECC (G.R. No. 85024,
January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 190, 195):
x x x the test of
whether or not an employee suffers from
‘permanent total disability’ is a showing of the capacity
of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability
he incurred. Thus, if by reason of the
injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable
to perform his customary job for more
than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage
of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in more
detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then
the said employee undoubtedly suffers from
‘permanent total disability’ regardless of whether
or not he loses the use of any
part of his body.
A total disability does not require that the employee be
absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is
that the injury must be such that
the employee cannot pursue his usual work
and earn therefrom (Austria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146636, Aug. 12, 2002, 387
SCRA 216, 221). On the other hand, a
total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously
for more than 120 days. Thus, in the very recent case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad (G.R.
No. 134028, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 268, 270-271), we held:
Permanent disability is inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120
days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. x
x x.
Total disability, on the other hand, means
the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of
similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind
of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury
which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the
impairment of one’s earning capacity.[22]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Applying
the standards reflected above vis-à-vis the
fact that from the time petitioner was medically repatriated on August 16,
2002 up to the time he filed his complaint for disability compensation
on July 14, 2003 or for almost eleven (11)
months, petitioner remained unemployed, his disability is considered permanent
and total.
The third physician, Dr. Fajardo, whose
findings are final and binding on the parties, certified that[23]
petitioner is suffering from a life-risk and work-related
heart ailment (hypertensive cardiovascular disease/coronary artery disease, chronic
stable angina). Dr. Fajardo thus cautioned
that although petitioner had undergone “Percutaneous Coronary Intervention,” his
illness “can be aggravated by [his] continued employment” which can cause the
“recurrence of [the] coronary events.”
Significantly, the doctor’s impression matches that of petitioner’s
physician Dr. Vicaldo that petitioner is “unfit to resume work as seaman in any
capacity” as “his illness is considered work-aggravated.”
Under
paragraph 20.1.5 of the parties’ CBA, it is stipulated that “[a] seafarer whose
disability is assessed at 50% or more under
the POEA Employment Contract shall x x x be regarded as permanently
unfit for further sea service in any
capacity and entitled to 100% compensation,
i.e., x x x US$60,000.00 for ratings.”[24]
Petitioner’s disability rating being 68.66%,
he is entitled to a 100% disability compensation of US$60,000, as correctly
found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
So Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Suganob,[25]
enlightens, thus:
Apropos the appropriate disability benefits that
respondent is entitled to, we find that Suganob is entitled to Grade 1
disability benefits which corresponds to total and permanent disability. . .
x x x To be entitled to Grade 1 disability
benefits, the employee’s disability must not only be total but also permanent.
Permanent
disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120
days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any of his body. Clearly,
Suganob’s disability is permanent since he was unable to work from the
time he was medically repatriated on
Total
disability, on the other hand, does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the
injury which is compensated, but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the
impairment of one’s earning capacity. Total disability does not require that
the employee be absolutely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must
be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom.
Both the company-designated physician and Suganob’s physician found that
Suganob is unfit to continue his duties as a Chief Cook since his illness
prevented him from continuing his duties as such. Due to his illness, he can no longer perform
work which is part of his daily routine as Chief Cook like lifting heavy loads
of frozen meat, fish, water, etc. when preparing meals for the crew members. Hence, Suganob’s disability is also total.[26] (Emphasis supplied)
As for the
deletion by the appellate court of the award of attorney’s fees, the Court
deems it just and equitable to reinstate the same, petitioner having been
compelled to litigate due to respondents’ failure to satisfy his valid claim.[27] The NLRC ruling reducing to US$1,000 the
Labor Arbiter’s award of attorney’s fees stands, petitioner not having appealed
therefrom and, in any event, it being reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The NLRC Decision
dated August 31, 2005 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice