Asegurar el futuro medio ambiental de las siguientes generaciones

DOCTRINE:

An employee’s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 24045-day treatment period, while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability. This is true "regardless of whether the employee loses the use of any part of his body.

FACTS:

Respondent Calo worked for petitioners Alpha Ship, Junel M. Chan and their foreign principal, (CKCL) under 7 employment contracts.

While MV Iris was in China, respondent suffered back pain on the lower part of his lumbar region and urinated with solid particles. On checkup, the doctor found him suffering from urinary tract infection and renal colic, and was given antibiotics. When respondent’s condition did not improve, he consulted another doctor in Chile and was found to have kidney problems and urinary tract infection but was declared fit for work on a "light duty" basis. In Japan, respondent was diagnosed with suspected renal and/or ureter calculus and was declared "unfit for work”.

Respondent was thus repatriated and was referred by petitioners to Dr. Cruz, the company-designated physician who continously examined respondent from 2004-2005.

Respondent, who felt that his condition has not improved – consulted another specialist in internal medicine, Dr. Vicaldo, who issued the following diagnosis: that it was Impediment Grade X, that he is now unfit to resume work as seaman in any capacity and that his illness is considered work aggravated/related. Respondent filed a claim for disability benefits with petitioners, but the claim was denied.

LA: granted permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees to respondent, but denied his claim for moral

and exemplary damages.

NLRC: Appeal is granted. The decision of the Labor Arbiter was vacated and set aside. The complaint for

dismissed for lack of merit.

CA RULING: NLRC decision was reversed. Decision of the Labor Arbiter was reinstated. ISSUE: Whether respondent’s claim for disability benefits should prosper.

YES. An employee’s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated

physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 24045-day treatment period, while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability. This is true "regardless of whether the employee loses the use of any part of his body."

Respondent was repatriated on October 12, 2004 and underwent treatment by the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, until October 14, 2005, or for a continuous period of over one year – or for more than the statutory 120-day47 or even 240-day48 period. During said treatment period, Dr. Cruz did not arrive at a definite assessment of respondent’s fitness or disability; thus, respondent’s medical condition remained unresolved. It was only on July 18, 2006 that respondent was declared fit to work by Dr. Cruz. Such declaration, however, became irrelevant, for by then, respondent had been under medical treatment and unable to engage in gainful employment for more than 240 days. Pursuant to the doctrine in Kestrel, the conclusive presumption that the respondent is totally and permanently disabled thus arose.

In the same manner, the issue of which among the two diagnoses or opinions should prevail – that of Dr. Cruz or Dr. Vicaldo – is rendered irrelevant in view of the lapse of the said 240-day period. As far as the parties are concerned, respondent’s medical treatment and disability continued for more than 240 days without any finding or diagnosis by the company-designated physician that he was fit to resume work. Thus, consonant with law and jurisprudence, respondent is entitled to a declaration of permanent total disability, as well as the corresponding benefit attached thereto in the amount of US$60,000.00.

93. INC. SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., CAPTAIN SIGFREDO E. MONTERROYO AND/OR INTERORIENT NAVIGATION LIMITED, v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS G.R. No. 178564 January 15, 2014 PAYMENT OF DISABILITY BENEFITS

DOCTRINE:

An employer shall be liable for the injury or illness suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract. There is no need to show that such injury is work-related except that it must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. The rule, however, is not absolute and the employer may be exempt from liability if he can successfully prove that the cause of the seaman’s injury was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act.

FACTS:

Respondent was employed as wiper for the vessel MV Commander by petitioner INC Shipmanagement, Inc. for its principal, petitioner Interorient Navigation, Ltd. Respondent claimed while working, certain chemicals splashed all over his body because of an explosion. Respondent demanded for the payment of his full disability benefits under Section 20 (B) in relation to Sections 30 and 30-A of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), in the amount of US$60,000.00, which petitioners refused to heed. Thus, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for the same.

Petitioners denied respondent’s claims, contending that his injury was self-inflicted and, hence, not compensable under Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC. They denied that there was an explosion and claimed that respondent poured thinners on himself and set himself on fire. They averred that he was led to commit such act because he was to be dismissed for stealing supplies. They also stated that before they discovered respondent burning, he caused flooding in the engine room.

LA RULING: The LA ruled in favor of petitioners, dismissing respondent’s complaint for lack of merit. The LA

ISSUE: Is the petitioner liable to pay the permanent total disability benefits? SC RULING:

NO. The prevailing rule under Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC on compensation and benefits for injury or

illness was that an employer shall be liable for the injury or illness suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract. There was no need to show that such injury was work-related except that it must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. The rule, however, is not absolute and the employer may be exempt from liability if he can successfully prove that the cause of the seaman’s injury was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act as provided under Section 20 (D) thereof.

Petitioners have successfully discharged the burden of proving by substantial evidence that respondent’s injury was directly attributable to himself.

First, records bear out circumstances which all lead to the reasonable conclusion that respondent was responsible for the flooding and burning incidents. The LA and NLRC gave credence to the corroborating testimonies of the crewmen pointing to respondent as the person who deliberately caused the flooding incident. Second, respondent’s version that the burning was caused by an accident is hardly supported by the evidence on record. In addition to testimonies, an inspection of the incinerator after the incident showed that there were unburnt cardboard cartons found inside with no sign of explosion and the steel plates surrounding it were cool to the touch. Third, petitioners’ theory that respondent’s burns were self-inflicted gains credence through the existence of motive. Both the LA and the NLRC made a factual finding that prior to the burning incident, respondent was caught pilfering the vessel’s supplies for which he was told that he was to be relieved from his duties. This adequately supports the reasonable conclusion that respondent may have harbored a grudge against the captain and the chief steward who denied giving him the questioned items. At the very least, it was natural for him to brood over feelings of resentment considering his impending dismissal. These incidents shore up the theory that he was motivated to commit an act of sabotage which, however, backfired into his own burning.

All told, petitioners having established through substantial evidence that respondent’s injury was self-inflicted and, hence, not compensable pursuant to Section 20 (D) of the 1996 POEA-SEC.

94. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, v. GENEROSO E. SIBUG G.R. No. 201072 April 2, 2014

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

PHYSICIAN ASSESMENT RE: PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY