6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Face with multiple abrasions, error of refraction, senile nuclear/corticol cataract, both
eyes, vitreous floating left eye" and certified that because of his condition, he cannot
work as a seafarer in any capacity.[10] Thus, on September 10, 2009, respondent filed
a complaint before the NLRC against petitioners for disability benefits, among others.
[11] This notwithstanding, respondent continued to undergo treatment from the
company-designated physician to treat his condition until October 12, 2009. Thereafter,
respondent's treatment stopped and the company-designated physician did not issue
his final disability rating.[12]
In defense, petitioners countered, inter alia, that respondent's complaint should be
dismissed on account of prematurity, considering that he was still undergoing treatment
when he filed his complaint.[13]
The LA Ruling
In a Decision[14] dated September 15, 2010, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in
respondent's favor, and accordingly, ordered petitioners to jointly and severally pay him
the amounts of: (a) US$118,800.00 or its peso equivalent as permanent total disability
benefits in accordance with the CBA; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (c)
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) 10% of the total monetary awards as
attorney's fees.[15]
The LA found respondent to be suffering from a permanent total disability, given that
from the time of his repatriation until the case was decided, there was no declaration
from either the company-designated or the independent physicians that respondent
was fit to work. According to the LA, the fact that respondent was never again
summoned by petitioners for another sea duty bolsters the notion that he is indeed
permanently and totally disabled.[16]
Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC Ruling
In a Resolution[17] dated May 27, 2011, the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling with
modification deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages.[18] The NLRC held
that the failure of the company-designated physician to make an assessment of
respondent's condition within the 120-day period from his repatriation deemed his
disability to be permanent and total, and thus, he must be given the corresponding
benefits in accordance with the CBA.[19]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution[20]
dated July 25, 2011. Aggrieved, they elevated the case to the CA by way of certiorari.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[21] dated March 25, 2013, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling. It held, inter
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60895
2/6