SECOND DIVISION
|
COASTAL SAFEWAY MARINE SERVICES INC., Petitioner,
- versus - ELMER T. ESGUERRA,
Respondent.
|
|
G.R. No. 185352 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN,* PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August
10, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Compliance
with the mandatory reporting requirements for the claim of disability benefits
and sickness allowance under the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration Standard
Employment Contract Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board
Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC) is central to this Rule 45 petition for
review on certiorari, primarily
assailing the 29 August 2008 Decision rendered by the then Seventh Division of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 90298,[1]
the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is
granted. The Resolutions dated June 30,
2004 and September 30, 2004 of public respondent NLRC are set aside. Accordingly, private respondents [Coastal
Safeway Marine Services, Inc., Benedicto C. Morcilla and
SO ORDERED.[2]
The Facts
A
seafarer since 1991, respondent Elmer T. Esguerra (Esguerra) applied for
placement with petitioner Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. (CSMSI)
sometime in 2003. Found fit for work
during the pre-employment medical examination conducted by the
company-designated physician,[3]
Esguerra was hired by the CSMSI as Third Mate for the M/V Mr. Nelson, an
ocean-going vessel under the flag of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) owned by
its foreign principal, Canada & Middle East General Trading (CMEGT). Subject to the provisions of the POEA-SEC,
the contract of employment executed by the parties on 9 May 2003 provided a
term of one (1) year and a basic monthly salary of US$800.00 for a 48-hour
work-week, with provisions for overtime pay and vacation leave with pay.[4] Rather than the aforesaid vessel, however, it
appears that, on 13 May 2003, Esguerra, as Second Officer, eventually boarded
the vessel M/V Gondwana which was likewise manned by CSMSI on behalf of Nabeel
Shipmanagement Ltd. Fze. (NSLF).[5]
On
28 June 2003 or after forty six (46) days of shipboard employment, Esguerra
requested medical attention for back and chest pains while M/V Gondwana was
docked at Port Jebel Ali, UAE. Examined
on 5 July 2003 at the Jebel Ali Medical Centre, Esguerra was declared not fit
for work until complete cardiac evaluation is done and advised to rest until
then by Dr. Zarga S. Tulmar.[6] Despite the normal results of the serology,
hematology, biochemistry and x-ray tests administered upon him,[7]
however, Esguerra insisted on going home on the ground that he had been
rendered unfit for work. Alleging that
he had yet to receive his salary for June 2003 and that his employer was making
him shoulder his repatriation expenses as a consequence of his failure to
finish his contract, Esguerra also sought assistance from the Jebel Ali
police/coastguard regarding his predicament.[8] Subsequent to his arrival in the
Having
consulted with Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, a Doctor of Internal Medicine and
Cardiology at the PHC as well as Dr. Rimando C. Saguin, an Orthopedic Surgeon
at the POH, Esguerra further underwent diagnostic tests and was prescribed
various medications at the PGH for chronic stable angina.[9] On 16 July 2003, Esguerra filed against
CSMSI, its president, Benedicto C. Morcilla (Morcilla), and CMEGT, the
complaint for medical reimbursement, sickness allowance, permanent disability
benefits, damages and attorneys fees which was docketed as NLRC-OFW Case No.
(M) 03-07-1784-00 before the arbitral level of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).[10] Subsequent to the filing of said complaint,
Dr. Vicaldo issued a medical certificate dated 18 July 2003, diagnosing
Esguerra to be afflicted with Coronary Artery Disease, Stable angina pectoris
and declaring him unfit for work, with an Impediment Grade VII (41.8%).[11] On 29 July 2003, Dr. Saguin also issued a
medical certification stating that, as a consequence of his moderate rigidity
with 2/3 loss of motion and loss of lifting power of the trunk, Esguerra was
then unfit to work with an Impediment Grade VIII.[12]
In
support of his complaint, Esguerra alleged, among other, matters, that he was
repatriated for medical reasons on account of his work-related/aggravated
ailment; that despite being apprised of his intention to submit himself for
medical examination, CSMSI failed to refer him to a company-designated
physician, and insisted that he was fit for work; and, that left with no choice
but to seek medical attention on his own at the PGH, PHC and POH, he was
constrained to file his complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance,
damages and attorneys fees.[13]
In refutation, CSMSI, Morcilla and CMEGT averred that the tests administered on
Esguerra at the Jebel Ali Medical Centre revealed that he was in good health;
and, that disregarding the finding that he continued to be fit for work,
Esguerra insisted on his repatriation and filed his complaint without
submitting himself to a post-employment medical examination within three (3) working
days upon his return.[14] Finding in favor CSMSI, Morcilla and CMEGT,
Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio went on to render the 29 January 2004 Decision,
dismissing the complaint on the ground that Esguerra failed to prove his
disability and to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician, pursuant to Section 20-B of the POEA SEC.[15]
With
the affirmance of the Labor Arbiters decision in the 30 June 2003 Resolution
issued by the NLRCs First Division in NLRC NCR CA No. 039292-04,[16]
Esguerra filed the petition for certiorari
docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 90298.
On 29 August 2008, the CAs Seventh Division rendered the herein
assailed decision reversing the NLRCs 30 June 2003 resolution, upon the
following findings and conclusions, viz.:
(a) the medical certifications issued by Drs. Vicaldo and Saguin indicate that
respondent is entitled to temporary disability benefits corresponding to
Impediment Grade VII (41.8%) which was assessed as a consequence of the illness
he suffered during the period of his employment; (b) the post-employment
medical examination by a company-designated physician under POEA Memorandum
Circular No. 055-96 (Revised Standard
Employment Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers
on Board Ocean-Going Vessels) is not absolute and admits of exceptions; (c)
petitioners failure to refer him to a company-designated physician justified
respondents resort to the physicians who declared him unfit for work and
assessed his Impediment Grade as aforesaid; and, (d) respondent is entitled to
a sickness allowance equivalent to four months salary.[17]
CSMSIs
motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision was denied for lack of
merit in the CAs second assailed Resolution dated 11 November 2008,[18]
hence, this petition.
The Issues
CSMSI
seeks the reversal of the CAs assailed resolutions on the following grounds,
to wit:
1. The
ruling of the Court of the Court of Appeals reversing and setting aside the
findings of fact and conclusions of law of Labor Arbiter Florentino R.
Darlucio, which was affirmed in toto by
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), First Division, is contrary to
the evidence on record and runs afoul with prevailing jurisprudence.
2. The
Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence and applied the POEA Standard
Employment Contract of 1996 instead of the Revised Terms and Conditions for
Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going vessels, which is part and parcel of the
Contract of Employment entered into between Esguerra and the petitioner on May
9, 2003.[19]
The Courts Ruling
We
find the petition impressed with merit.
Viewed
in light of the fact that Esguerras contract of employment was executed on 9
May 2003, CSMSI correctly faults the CA for applying POEA Memorandum Circular
No. 055-96 instead of the 2000 POEA-SEC which took effect on 25 June 2000. Deemed written in
the seafarer's contract of employment,[20]
the 2000 POEA-SEC like its predecessor was designed primarily for
the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their
employment on board ocean-going vessels.[21] Anent a seafarers entitlement to
compensation and benefits for injury and illness, Section 20-B (3) thereof
provides as follows:
Section 20-B.Compensation and Benefits for Injury and Illness.
xxxx
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.E
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-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.
If a doctor appointed by the
seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly
between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be
final and binding on both parties.
(Emphasis added.)
The foregoing provision has been interpreted to mean that
it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of
assessing the seaman's disability,[22] whether total or partial, due to either
injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment.[23] Concededly, this does not mean that the
assessment of said physician is final, binding or conclusive on the claimant,
the labor tribunal or the courts.[24] Should he be so minded, the seafarer has the
prerogative to request a second opinion and to consult a physician of his
choice[25]
regarding his ailment or injury, in which case the medical report issued by the
latter shall be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court, based on its
inherent merit.[26] For the seamans claim to prosper, however,
it is mandatory that he should
be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his
repatriation.[27] Failure to comply
with this mandatory reporting requirement without justifiable cause shall
result in forfeiture of the right to claim the compensation and disability benefits
provided under the POEA-SEC.[28]
There is no dispute regarding the fact that Esguerra had
altogether failed to comply with the above-discussed mandatory reporting
requirement. Beyond his bare assertion, however, that CSMSI never gave him
referrals to continue his medications as recommended by the foreign doctor
despite his call on 8 July 2003 to inform them that he will report the next
day in order to submit his medical evaluation abroad, Esguerra did not present
any evidence to prove justification for his inability to submit himself to a
post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician. If a written notice is required of a seafarer
who is physically incapacitated for purposes of compliance with said
requirement, we fail to see why a more tangible proof should not likewise be
expected of Esguerra who, after his arrival on 7 July 2003, appears to have
been well enough to consult with Dr. Vicaldo and Dr. Saguin on 9 July 2003.[29] Indeed, self-serving and unsubstantiated
declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies
where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial
evidence.[30] Often described as more than a mere
scintilla,[31] substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might
conceivably opine otherwise.[32]
To our mind, Esguerras compliance with the mandatory
reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC was made even more imperative by the
fact that his repatriation for medical reasons was categorically disputed by
CSMSI. Consistent with the 5 July 2003 diagnosis made by Dr.
Tulmar at the Jebel Ali Medical Centre declaring him not fit for work until
complete cardiac evaluation is done and advising him to rest until then,[33]
it appears that Esguerra underwent serology, hematology, biochemistry and x-ray
diagnostic tests which yielded no significant findings relative to the back and
chest pains he claims to have suffered.[34] Although the 5 July
2003 notation made on the M/V Gondwana Chief Officers Logbook states
that he was advised to be repatriated on the same day and to continue his
medication in the Philippines, no less than Esguerra himself confirmed in his
6 July 2003 letter to the Jebel Ali police/coastguard that he had yet to
undergo a compete cardiac evaluation and that CSMSIs foreign principal, NSLF,
had refused to shoulder his repatriation expenses on the ground that he was
unable to finish his contract.[35]
Quite significantly, Esguerra also filed his complaint on 16 July 2003[36] or even before his impediment rating was definitively assessed by either Dr. Vicaldo or Dr. Saguin. Our perusal of the record further shows that, by and of themselves, the medical certifications upon which Esguerra anchored his claims for disability benefits and sickness allowance were not supported by such diagnostic tests and/or procedures as would adequately refute the normal results of those administered to him at the Jebel Ali Medical Centre. Working on a vague diagnosis of lower back problem, Dr. Saguin appears to have caused Esguerra to undergo physical therapy and prescribed him pain medications[37] similar to those he was already given abroad.[38] While Dr. Vicaldo also issued the 18 July 2003 medical certification, diagnosing Esguerra to be suffering from Coronary Artery Disease, Stable Angina Pectoris,[39] his justification for the assessment of an Impediment Grade VII (41.8%) was merely anchored on the following general impressions, to wit:
- This patient/seaman presented with a history of shortness of breath, easy fatigue and chest pain [i]n June, 2003;
- He was seen in Dubai UAE where his ECG showed right bundle branch block.
- He was also seen at the PGH where he was treated [for] chronic stable angina.
- At present, he still complains of easy fatigue and chest pain.
- He is now unfit to resume work as seaman in any capacity.
- His illness is considered work aggravated.
- He would require antianginal medic[ine] to relieve his recurrent chest pain.
- He is at risk for developing full blown coronary artery disease in the future which may present as acute myocardial infarction.
- Having recurrent chest pain obviously impairs his quality of life.
- He needs lifestyle [modification] to improve his prognosis. This includes nicotine abstinence, dietary adjustments and physical exercise.[40]
Granted that
strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation,[41] and
mere probability and not the ultimate degree of certainty is regarded as the
touchstone or test of proof in compensation proceedings,[42] it
cannot be gainsaid that awards of compensation cannot rest in speculations or
presumptions.[43]
In the absence of
showing of adequate tests and reasonable findings to support the same, the
divergent Impediment Grades assessed by Dr. Vicaldo and Dr. Saguin cannot be
expediently taken at face value. In Magsaysay Maritime Corporation vs. Velasquez,[44]
this Court significantly brushed aside the evidentiary value of a
recommendation made by Dr. Vicaldo which was likewise "based on a single medical report
which outlined the alleged findings and medical history" of the
claimant-seafarer. In Montoya vs. Transmed Manila Corporation,[45]
a similar fate was dealt the same doctor's plain statement of the supposed
work-relation/work-aggravation of a seafarer's ailment which was "not
supported by any reason or proof submitted together with the assessment or in
the course of the arbitration."
We
are well aware of the principle that, consistent with the purposes underlying
the formulation of the POEA-SEC, its provisions must be applied fairly,
reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then that
its beneficent provisions can be fully carried into effect.[46] This exhortation cannot, however, be taken to
sanction the award of disability
benefits and sickness allowance based on flimsy evidence and/or even in the
face of an unjustified non-compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement
under the POEA-SEC. When the language of
the contract is explicit and leaves no doubt as to the intention of its
drafters, the rule is settled that courts may not read into it any other
intention that would contradict its plain import.[47]
While we sympathize with Esguerras plight, we are, therefore, constrained to
deny his claims for disability benefits and sickness allowance absent proof of compliance
with the requirements set forth in Section 20 (B), paragraph (3) of the
POEA-SEC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the
assailed Decision dated 29 August 2008 is, accordingly, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof,
another is entered REINSTATING the
30 June 2004 Resolution issued by the NLRC and 29 January 2004 Decision
rendered by Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Associate Justice Lucas P.
Bersamin is designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1053 dated 29
July 2011
[1] Rollo, pp. 32-42, CAs 29 August 2008
Decision.
[2]
[3] PEME
Results from the San Marcelino Medical Clinic, id. at 63-66.
[4] Contract
of Employment, id. at 66.
[5] Esguerras
Position Paper as quoted in the Labor Arbiters 29 January 2004 Decision in
NLRC-OFW Case No. (M) 03-07-1784-00, id. at 45.
[6] Sometimes
referred to as Dr. Talmur, id. at 47.
[7] Jebel
Ali Medical Centre Test Results, id. at 81-84.
[8] Esguerras
6 July 2003 letter as quoted in the CAs 29 August 2008 Decision in CA-G.R. No.
90298, id. at 36-37.
[9] PGH
Request Form and Prescriptions, id. at 85-87.
[10] Esguerras
16 July 2003 complaint, id. at 96.
[11] Dr.
Vicaldos Medical Certificate and Prescriptions, id. at 88-91.
[12] Dr.
Saguins Medical Certification and Prescriptions, id. at 92-95.
[13] Esguerras
Position Paper as quoted in the Labor Arbiters 29 January 2004 Decision in
NLRC-OFW Case No. (M) 03-07-1784-00, id. at 45-50.
[14] CSMSIs
Position Paper, id. at 51-52.
[15] Labor
Arbiters 29 January 2004 Decision in NLRC-OFW Case No. (M) 03-07-1784-00, id.
at 44-56.
[16] NLRCs
30 June 2004 Resolution in NLRC NCR CA No. 039292-04, id. at 56a-62.
[17] CAs
29 August 2008 Decision in CA-G.R. No. 90298, id. at 32-42.
[18] CAs
11 November 2008 Resolution in CA-G.R. No. 90298, id. at 43.
[19]
[20] Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency,
Inc., G.R. No. 172800, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA
592, 608 .
[21] Bergensen D.Y. Philippines, Inc. v. Estenzo,
G.R. No. 141269, 9 December 2005, 477 SCRA 150, 157.
[22] Magsaysay Maritime
Corp. v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 179802, 14
November 2008, 571 SCRA 239, 248.
[23] German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, 403 Phil.
572, 588 (2001).
[24] Maunlad
Transport, Inc. v. Manigo, Jr., G.R. No. 161416, 13 June 2008, 554 SCRA 446, 457 .
[25] NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. v. Talavera,
G.R. No. 175894, 14 November 2008, 571 SCRA 183, 193.
[26] HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar, G.R. No. 168716, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 315, 326.
[27] Cootauco v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services,
Inc., G.R. No. 184722, 15 March 2010, 615 SCRA 529, 543.
[28] Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc., G.R. No. 167813, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 502, 512.
[29] Rollo,
pp. 90; 93.
[30] Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154503, 29 February 2008, 547 SCRA 220, 238.
[31] Spouses Aya-ay v. Arpahil Shipping
Corporation, G.R. No. 155359, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 282, 294.
[32] Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol, G.R. No.
186289, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 352, 377.
[33] Rollo, p. 97.
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] Heirs
of the Late R/O Aniban v. NLRC, 347 Phil. 46, 54 (1997).
[42] Bonilla v. Court of Appeals,
395 Phil. 162, 167 (2000).
[43] Rio v. Employees
Compensation Commission, 387 Phil. 612, 620 (2000).
[44] G.R. No. 179802, 14 November 2008, 571 SCRA 239, 251.
[45] G.R. No. 183329, 27 August 2009, 597 SCRA 334, 347.
[46] Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee, G.R. No. 165156, 2 April 2007, 520 SCRA
109, 121-122.
[47] Supra
note 23 at 588-589.