6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
676 Phil. 313
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 185412, November 16, 2011 ]
GILBERT QUIZORA, PETITIONER, VS. DENHOLM CREW
MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC., RESPONDENT.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review challenging the September 10, 2008
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the Resolutions[2] of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated September 20, 2004 and May 24,
2005, and reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dated June 27, 2002.
The Facts
Records show that in 1992, Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc. (respondent
company), a domestic manning agency that supplied manpower to Denklav Maritime
Services, Ltd. (Denklav), a foreign maritime corporation, hired the services of Gilbert
Quizora (petitioner) to work as a messman on board the international vessels of
Denklav. Based on Article 4.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement[3] (CBA) entered
into by and between the Association of Marine Officers and Seamen Union of the
Philippines (AMOSUP) and Denholm Ship Management (Singapore) Ltd., represented by
Denklav, his contractual work as messman was considered terminated upon the
expiration of each contract. Article 5.1 thereof provided that the duration of his sea
service with respondent company was nine (9) months depending on the requirements
of the foreign principal. After the end of a contract for a particular vessel, he would be
given his next assignment on a different vessel. His last assignment was from
November 4, 1999 to July 16, 2000 on board the vessel “MV Leopard.”
After the expiration of his contract with “MV Leopard,” petitioner was lined up for
another assignment to a different vessel, but he was later disqualified for employment
and declared unfit for sea duty after he was medically diagnosed to be suffering from
“venous duplex scan (lower extremities) deep venous insufficiency, bilateral femoral
and superficial femoral veins and the (L) popliteal vein.” In layman’s terms, he was
medically found to have varicose veins.
Subsequently, petitioner demanded from respondent company the payment of disability
benefits, separation pay and reimbursement of medical expenses. His demands,
however, were denied. He then submitted his claim before the AMOSUP, but it was
likewise denied. Thereafter, he filed with the LA a complaint for payment of disability
benefits, medical expenses, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/26253
1/11