- Information
- AI Chat
3. Abosta Shipmanagement CORP., CIDO Shipping Company LTD., AND ALEX S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui
Juris Doctor (LAW12)
University of Makati
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
- JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
- Santos Case Digest GR 154259
- Puig, et al. vs. Peñaflorida, et al., 16 SCRA 136, No. L-15939 January 31, 1966
- Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14 SCRA 292, No. L-19201 June 16, 1965
- Del Rosario vs. Ferrer, 630 SCRA 683, G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010
- Villanueva vs. Branoco, 640 SCRA 308, G.R. No. 172804 January 24, 2011
Related documents
- Lorenzo vs. Posadas, 64 Phil. 353, No. 43082 June 18, 1937
- Labor Law 2 Syllabus and cases required
- 2. People v Martinez
- 1. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC 179 SCRA 459, November 15, 1989
- 1. People v Chowdury
- 1. JOSE Aspiras Malicdem vs. ASIA BULK Transport Phils., INC., Inter- Ocean Company Limited (formerly Ocean Shipping Company) AND Ernesto T. Tuvida , June 1
Preview text
Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SECOND DIVISION G. No. 214906, January 16, 2019 ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORP., CIDO SHIPPING COMPANY LTD., AND ALEX S. ESTABILLO, PETITIONERS, V. DANTE C. SEGUI, RESPONDENT. DECISION J. REYES, JR., J.: This labor case is about a claim for a maximum benefit of permanent and total disability benefits, and fees. The Facts of the Case As narrated Labor Arbiter (LA) Fatima (LA Franco), the facts are the following: Dante C. alleged that he was hired the Abosta Shipmanagement Shipping Company as an able seaman on board the vessel Grand Quest with a salary of per that his employment was covered an ITF IBF JSU Collective Bargaining Agreement that prior to his deployment, he underwent the required medical examination (PEME) of which he was declared fit to work and thereafter, boarded the vessel on June 16, that during his employment, he would be on duty more than 12 hours a day resulting in extreme fatigue and that on October 26, 2010, while on duty, he felt cramps followed a severe back that he informed the master who advised him to that the next day, he was unable to stand and remained in his cabin for the rest of the that when the vessel arrived in South Africa, he was admitted to a medical facility and he underwent an of his back and injection on his left that the same procedure was taken in Colombia and again in Panama where he was diagnosed with a lumbar disc problem and was recommended that on December 2, 2010, he arrived in Manila and was referred to the Manila Doctors Hospital where a CT Scan showed he was suffering from Disc Bulge at with Posteromedial Herniation of the Nucleus Pulposus as well as associated Spinal Canal and Neuroforaminal Narrowings as Lumbar x x that on December 14, 2010, he underwent Laminotomy and Discectomy at Level and was confined for 3 that he continued with his therapy but his condition did not that despite the treatment, pain and discomfort persisted, thus, he sought another treatment and opinion from an independent doctor in the person of Dr. Nicanor that after a thorough examinations and test, concluded that the nature and extent of injury rendered him permanently Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and totally unable to work as a seafarer, thus, asked to pay his total and permanent that however, refused. Hence, this complaint. Abosta Shipmanagement Shipping Company Estabillo et do not dispute the circumstances of engagement and subsequent deployment to his assigned vessel, as well as his repatriation on medical grounds, but deny liability for the claims and aver: that following repatriation on December 2, 2010 he was immediately referred to the companydesignated that was diagnosed with Lumbar Disc Herniation and was referred to an orthopedic surgeon and physiatrist x x that underwent foraminotomy and discectomy of and tolerated the procedure that he was placed on therapy for healing and possible fitness to work x x that unknown to the stopped attending his medical appointments and instituted his that during the mandatory conferences, prevailed upon to continue his treatment for the final disability that returned to the physician on May 17, 2011 to continue treatment and obtain his final assessment x x that finding that had reached maximum medical cure, the assessed with Grade 8 rigidity or loss of motion of lifting power of the trunk x x that is only entitled to the compensation corresponding to the assessment made the that there is no basis to claim permanent total disability that failed to prove his entitlement to full disability and that the findings of the physician are binding on The Decision On February 2, 2012, LA Franco rendered a Decision in favor of The LA held that Segui is entitled to maximum disability benefit after finding that he suffered from a while on board the vessel, and applying the terms and conditions of the Philippine Overseas Employment AdministrationStandard Employment Contract which is incorporated in his employment contract. Section 20 of provides that the employer shall be liable for disability compensation for sustained during the term of the The LA found that Segui underwent treatment and therapy under the companydesignated physician for almost eight months, after which, he was determined to have reached maximum medical cure as of July 8, 2011. However, during his checkup on June 22, 2011, or less than two weeks up to the time he was declared to have reached maximum medical cure, Segui was still assessed to have poor lifting capacity. The medical certificate and assessment dated July 8, 2011, however, made no reference to this medical observation. The LA construed that the July 8, 2011 certification is intended to comply with the period under current Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Indeed, from his repatriation on December 2, 2010, up to this writing, or a period of more than one and a half years, which is definitely more than 240 days, there is no showing in the records that was able to earn wages as seafarer, or in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do. With permanent disability of rigidity or two thirds loss of motion of lifting power of the it is without doubt that he would no longer be capable of performing the strenuous activities of a seafarer. Truly, no enterprising employer would ever employ, as seafarer, one who has lost two thirds of the motion or lifting power of his trunk. Patently, is already permanently and totally disabled from further working as a seafarer in any capacity. In fact, even if the physician assessed disability at Grade 8 only, still, the latter is entitled to compensation. This is in consonance with the provision of the ITF Standard Collective that Seafarer assessed at less than disability under the attached Annex 4 but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity the Doctor, shall also be entitled to Undoubtedly then, is entitled to total and permanent disability benefit or compensation granted under the ITF Standard Collective Abosta, et al. moved for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in a Resolution dated March 26, The Court of Appeals Decision Undaunted, Abosta, et al. elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended. On July 31, 2014, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing the petition and affirming the The CA resolved that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of permanent total disability benefits and maximum disability benefits to respondent Segui. The CA expounded that the disability is considered total if there is 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. The disability is considered permanent if there is inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether he loses the use of any part of his body. What determines entitlement to permanent disability benefits is the inability to work for more than 120 The findings reveal that from the date of repatriation on December 2, 2010 up to his consultation with his physician of choice on June 4, 2011, more than 120 days have passed and the physician failed to give him a disability grading or declare him fit to work. The physician only gave him a disability grading when he had already reached a maximum medical cure and even then, condition had not improved. Although he was given a disability grading, the physician did not declare him fit for sea Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly duty in any capacity. Thus, the CA determined that the NLRC was correct in affirming the Decision in declaring his disability as total and permanent, and awarding maximum disability benefits to Abosta, et al. moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated October 14, The Issues Presented Unconvinced, petitioners Abosta, et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, before the Court, raising the following grounds: I. Whether the committed serious and reversible error in affirming disability compensation on the basis of an unproven and unsubstantiated Collective Bargaining Agreement. II. Whether the committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that disability compensation is determined not the number of days of treatment but rather, the disability grading issued the physicians. Whether the committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that in the absence of evidence of bias, the findings of the physicians are entitled to great weight and respect. IV. Whether the committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that failure of a seafarer to refer the case to a third physician in the event of conflicting findings will result in the dismissal of the complaint. V. Whether the committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that fees may not be awarded where there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the party being held liable for the In his Comment, Segui alleges, among other points, that since his injury is undoubtedly as the same occurred while on board performing his duties and responsibilities, and he has been incapacitated for more than 120 days, he has the right to be compensated total and permanent disability Segui also avers that in case of conflict between the medical findings of the physician and his physician, the doubt should be resolved in his favor applying the principle of social Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly he is entitled to a maximum benefit of permanent and total disability benefits. In the case of Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. the Court expounded and summarized the rule in awarding permanent and total disability benefits, as follows: Harmonizing the decisions An analysis of the cited jurisprudence reveals that the first set of cases did not award permanent and total disability benefits to seafarers whose medical treatment lasted for more than 120 days, but not exceeding 240 days, because (1) the physician opined that the seafarer required further medical treatment or (2) the seafarer was uncooperative with the treatment. Hence, in those cases, despite exceeding 120 days, the seafarer was still not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. In such instance, Rule X, Section 2 of the IRR gave the physician additional time, up to 240 days, to continue treatment and make an assessment on the disability of the seafarer. The second set of cases, on the other hand, awarded permanent and total disability benefits to seafarers whose medical treatment lasted for more than 120 days, but not exceeding 240 days, because the physician did not give a justification for extending the period of diagnosis and treatment. Necessarily, there was no need anymore to extend the period because the disability suffered the seafarer was permanent. In other words, there was no indication that further medical treatment, up to 240 days, would address his total disability. If the treatment of 120 days is extended to 240 days, but still no medical assessment is given, the finding of permanent and total disability becomes conclusive. In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits a seafarer, the following rules (rules) shall govern: 1. The physician must issue a final medical assessment on the disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to 2. If the physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the disability becomes permanent and 3. If the physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the physician has sufficient justification to extend the and Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4. If the physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification. The Court is not unmindful of the declaration in INC Shipmanagement that extent of his disability (whether total or partial) is determined, not the number of days that he could not work, but the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his Indeed, the disability benefits granted to the seafarer are not entirely dependent on the number of treatment lapsed days. The treatment period can be extended to 240 days if the physician provided some sufficient justification. Equally eminent, however, is the pronouncement in the more recent case of Carcedo that determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the physician, subject to the periods prescribed Thus, to strike a balance between the two conflicting interests of the seafarer and its employer, the rules methodically took in consideration the applicability of both the period under the Labor Code and the period under the IRR. The medical assessment of the companydesignated physician is not the alpha and the omega of the claim for permanent and total disability. To become effective, such assessment must be issued within the bounds of the authorized period or the properly extended (Emphases ours) In the present case, the records reveal that from repatriation and immediate referral to the physician on December 2, 2010 until the 120day period on March 31, 2011, the latter did not issue a medical assessment on disability grading. It was only on the 219th day or on July 8, 2011, when Segui reached the maximum medical cure, that the physician issued a disability rating of 8 disability moderate rigidity or loss of motion or lifting power of the Notably, the physician did not determine fitness to work. Clearly, there was with Items 1 and 2 of the rules on claim for total and permanent disability benefits cited in the Elburg case. The physician failed to issue a medical assessment within the period from the time Segui reported to him, and there was no justifiable reason for such failure. Likewise, there was no sufficient justification to extend the period to 240 days. Thus, following the above rules, disability becomes permanent and total, and entitles him to permanent and total disability benefits under his contract and the collective bargaining agreement. In contrast, own physician provided a detailed medical assessment dated June 4, 2011, which justified his disability rating. Based on the physical examination and supported laboratory examination, he developed back problem while working. He had attack of leg cramps while on duty which to stand up. He had also attack of low back pain. He rested on his cabin for the rest of their trip. On two ports of call, he was examined in a medical facility but was only given pain medication. On the 3rd port of call in Panama, he was and underwent several examinations. He was diagnosed to Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly findings has merit. Here, the records of the case are replete with support that injury is permanent and total, and that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits as unanimously declared the LA, the NLRC and the CA. On the issue of fees, the Court affirms the award the LA, following the ruling in Gomez v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., which states that Article 2208, paragraph 8 of the Civil Code, fees can be recovered in actions for indemnity under compensation and liability In addition, pursuant to the case of Nacar v. Gallery the Court imposes on the monetary award for permanent and total disability benefits an interest at the legal rate of per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full satisfaction. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 31, 2014 and the Resolution dated October 14, 2014 in SP No. 130277 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that legal interest at the rate of per annum here imposed on the monetary award for permanent and total disability benefits due Dante C. Segui, be reckoned from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof. SO ORDERED. Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Caguioa, and JJ., concur. Additional Member per S. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018. CA rollo, pp. Id. at 170. Id. at 169. Id. at 168. Id. at Penned Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and concurred Commissioners Perlita B. Velasco and Romeo L. id. at Id. at 49. Id. at 50. Id. at Rollo, p. 36. Penned Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Myra V. id. at Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Id. at Id. at Id. at 73. Id. at Id. at Id. at 108. Id. at 118. Id. at 42. 765 Phil. 341 (2015). Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, supra note 20, at CA rollo, p. 139. Id. at HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar, 603 Phil. 309 Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Acub, G. No. 215595, April 26, 2017, 825 SCRA Gomez v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., G. No. August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 279. Gomez v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., supra note 24, at Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013). Source: Supreme Court This page was dynamically generated the Content Management System
3. Abosta Shipmanagement CORP., CIDO Shipping Company LTD., AND ALEX S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui
Course: Juris Doctor (LAW12)
University: University of Makati
- Discover more from:
Students also viewed
- JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
- Santos Case Digest GR 154259
- Puig, et al. vs. Peñaflorida, et al., 16 SCRA 136, No. L-15939 January 31, 1966
- Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14 SCRA 292, No. L-19201 June 16, 1965
- Del Rosario vs. Ferrer, 630 SCRA 683, G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010
- Villanueva vs. Branoco, 640 SCRA 308, G.R. No. 172804 January 24, 2011
Related documents
- Lorenzo vs. Posadas, 64 Phil. 353, No. 43082 June 18, 1937
- Labor Law 2 Syllabus and cases required
- 2. People v Martinez
- 1. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC 179 SCRA 459, November 15, 1989
- 1. People v Chowdury
- 1. JOSE Aspiras Malicdem vs. ASIA BULK Transport Phils., INC., Inter- Ocean Company Limited (formerly Ocean Shipping Company) AND Ernesto T. Tuvida , June 1