5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
condition did not improve. This prompted him to consult another physician, Dr. Rogelio
C. Catapang, Jr. (Dr. Catapang), who declared him unfit to resume his duties as a
seaman on January 16, 2010.[7]
Michael’s check-up with the orthopedic surgeon on February 3, 2010 showed minimal
pain on the left hand, but he was advised to continue with his medical therapy. Michael
went back for his check-up on February 10, 2010, and he was asked to return for a
follow-up check up on February 17, 2010. He failed to return on the said date.[8]
Instead, he demanded that he be paid disability benefits.
After his demand for payment of disability benefits was refused, Michael filed a
complaint for disability compensation and other monetary claims before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On September 9, 2010, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Michael and awarded his
claim for permanent total disability benefits under the CBA. The LA found Michael
entitled to the award as he was unable to perform his customary job for more than 120
days due to the injury sustained while performing his duty on board petitioners’ vessel.
The LA concluded that Michael did not abandon medical treatment and could not be
faulted for not returning to the company-designated physician who failed to assess him
of rightful disability grading after treatment of more than five months. The fallo of the
LA decision, docketed as NLRC Case No. (M) 01-00595-10, reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
Respondents to pay complainant the amount of US$89,100.00 representing
his permanent total disability benefit, plus 10% of the said amount as and
by way of attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.[9]
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA decision, reasoning out that there was no positive
proof warranting the award of disability benefits because there was no assessment of
any disability grading by Dr. Cruz. It did not give credence to the medical report of Dr.
Catapang because it was issued after a single medical consultation and did not indicate
the kind of examination conducted to accurately assess his medical condition. Moreover,
the NLRC found that Michael did not complete his medical treatment in violation of the
post-medical treatment provision in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The NLRC disposed:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
September 9, 2010, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is
being entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Michael filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC. Thereafter,
Michael filed a petition with the CA.
In its May 30, 2013 Decision, the CA reversed the NLRC and sustained the LA award of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58642
2/12