5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
disability benefits since he was unable to work for more than 120 days without a
disability assessment from Dr. Cruz.
As Ruizo’s medical condition had not improved, Dr. Cruz further recommended that he
undergo extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Ruizo was initially reluctant to
submit to the procedure, but he finally agreed and underwent ESWL on January 19,
2007, again at the petitioners’ expense. He reported to the company doctor for a
follow-up on February 5, 2007, but failed to go back for a further ESWL which the
company urologist believed was necessary as “[t]here is possibility of declaring the
patient fit to work after treatment.”[7]
On May 7, 2007, without informing Dr. Cruz or the agency, Ruizo consulted Dr. Efren
Vicaldo, an internist, who diagnosed him to be suffering from bilateral nephrolithiasis
and essential hypertension 1. Dr. Vicaldo gave him a disability rating of Impediment
Grade VII (41.8%).[8] Ruizo claimed that he did not report to the company doctor
after February 5, 2007 because he was advised by the doctor that he would already be
forwarding his assessment to the petitioners.
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
On June 29, 2007, Labor Arbiter (LA) Ermita T. Abrasaldo-Cuyuca rendered a
decision[9] dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. LA Cuyuca rejected Ruizo’s claim
that his employment was covered by the AMOSUP/IMEC TCCC CBA for 2004 as the
evidence he presented – a one-page excerpt from the purported agreement[10] – was
insufficient to prove its existence since it does not bear the signatures of the parties,
nor does it indicate whether it applies to the crew of M/V Harutamou.
On Ruizo’s disability, LA Cuyuca held that the absence of a disability rating from the
company doctor negated his claim for compensation and this was due to Ruizo’s
voluntary act of not undergoing further medical treatment with the petitioners. She
ruled out Ruizo’s assertion that his inability to work for more than 120 days entitled
him to permanent total disability benefits relying, in support of her ruling, on the
Resolution[11] dated February 12, 2007 of this Court’s Special First Division in Crystal
Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[12] which declared that the duration of the seafarer’s
treatment and the period that he is incapacitated to work do not have any bearing in
the determination of whether he is entitled to maximum disability benefits.
Ruizo appealed. In its decision[13] of June 3, 2008, the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) denied the appeal for lack of merit. He moved for reconsideration,
but the NLRC denied the motion. He then sought relief from the CA through a petition
for certiorari, charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
complaint, although he was already permanently unfit for sea duty.
The CA Decision
The CA granted the petition. It set aside the NLRC rulings and awarded Ruizo
permanent total disability compensation under the CBA in the amount of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56718
2/11