6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
diagnosed him to be suffering from Right Renal Calculus, Essential Hypertension. Dr.
Vicaldo considered his illness as work aggravated/related and declared him unfit to
resume work as a seafarer in any capacity.[6]
Picar then filed a complaint for permanent disability compensation, balance of sick
wages, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees.
On June 22, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered judgment[7] in favor of Picar. The
LA found that his illness was work-related and that the nature of his work as a chief
cook contributed to the aggravation of his condition. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
respondents to pay jointly and severally the complainant his permanent
disability compensation in the sum of US$60,000.00, balance of sick wages
in the sum of US$1,890.00, moral damages in the sum of P200,000.00,
exemplary damages in the sum of P200,000.00, and ten percent (10%) of
the judgment award as attorney’s fees.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[8]
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of the LA.[9] The NLRC ruled that
Picar’s disability was permanent as he was totally unable to perform his job for more
than 120 days from his repatriation. In support of its ruling, it cited the case of
Remigio v. NLRC[10] where it was held that if an employee was unable to perform his
customary job for more than 120 days and did 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 suffered from permanent total disability regardless of whether or not he
lost the use of any part of his body.
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter to the CA.
In the meantime, Picar moved for the execution of the LA decision. On July 3, 2012,
the LA issued a Writ of Execution for the enforcement and full satisfaction of its
decision. Consequently, petitioners paid the judgment award as evidenced by the
Satisfaction of Judgment pursuant to a Writ of Execution with Acknowledgment Receipt
executed by the NLRC-NCR Sheriff on August 13, 2012.[11]
In its assailed Decision, dated May 2, 2013, the CA dismissed the petition. Citing the
case of Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus,[12] the CA ruled that the
payment by petitioners of the judgment award constituted an amicable settlement that
had rendered the petition moot and academic. The dispositive portion of the decision
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59612
2/7