6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
752 PHIL. 46
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015 ]
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. AND REEDEREI CLAUS
PETER OFFEN, PETITIONERS, VS. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review of the Decision[1] dated July 8, 2010 and Resolution[2]
dated December 22, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 94745. The
CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award of US$125,000 as disability benefits and 10%
thereof as attorney’s fees to respondent-seaman Clemente M. Perez.
The facts follow.
Petitioners C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. and Reederei Claus Peter Offen hired
respondent as Oiler on board the vessel M/V P&O Nedlloyd Rio Grande. The parties
signed the 10-month employment contract[3] on May 22, 2000 and they agreed to
comply with the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Respondent’s employment is also covered by a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
While the Rio Grande was in Singapore on November 1, 2000, respondent failed to
report for duty. But at 9:30 a.m., he showed up at the crewmess confused. The crew
got scared of him. The Master of the Rio Grande decided that respondent will be a high
risk for the safety of the ship and its crew and must be repatriated.[4] Respondent was
diagnosed to have acute psychosis at Gleneagles Maritime Medical Center and was
declared unfit for sea duty.[5]
Respondent arrived in Manila on November 22, 2000 and petitioners referred him to Dr.
Baltazar V. Reyes, Jr. Dr. Reyes’s psychiatric evaluation stated that respondent did not
present any psychiatric difficulty of note, and that it is best to do a psychological test
and to observe respondent for another month without medication. According to Dr.
Reyes, respondent felt that his illness was caused by unfair treatment from the German
chief engineer. In 1996, respondent was sent home after a similar breakdown in Spain
but he was able to return to work in September 1997, said Dr. Reyes. Dr. Reyes’s
impression is that respondent has recurrent acute psychotic disorder for it does not
show all the time. He may be normal at one time but his psychotic disorder will
become manifest once triggered by an outside factor, most probably by a problem with
his superiors.[6]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58968
1/9