6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 784 Phil. 840 SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016 ] DOEHLE-PHILMAN[1] MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HENRY C. HARO, RESPONDENT. DECISION DEL CASTILLO, J.: "[T]he constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right. We should always be mindful that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence."[2] This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the July 20, 2012 Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 117988. The CA reversed and set aside the September 28, 2010[4] and November 30, 2010[5] Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC (OFW) No. 04-000295-10 which affirmed the February 26, 2010 Decision[6] of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissing the Complaint in NLRC OFW Case No. 06-09031-09. Accordingly, the CA ordered Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. (Doehle-Philman), Dohle (IOM) Limited (Dohle Ltd.) and Capt. Manolo T. Gacutan (petitioners) to jointly and severally pay respondent Henry C. Haro permanent and total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00 and attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award. Also assailed is the March 27, 2013 CA Resolution[7] denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Factual Antecedents On May 30, 2008, Doehle-Philman, in behalf of its foreign principal, Dohle Ltd., hired respondent as oiler aboard the vessel MV CMA CGM Providencia[8] for a period of nine months with basic monthly salary of US$547.00 and other benefits.[9] Before deployment, respondent underwent pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty.[10] Respondent stated that on June 1, 2008, he boarded the vessel and assumed his duties as oiler; however, in November 2008, he experienced heartache and loss of energy after hammering and lifting a 120-kilogram machine; thereafter, he was confined at a hospital in Rotterdam where he was informed of having a hole in his heart that needed medical attention.[11] After his repatriation on December 6, 2008, respondent reported to Doehle-Philman which in turn referred him to Clinico-Med. Respondent claimed that he was confined for two days in UST[12] Hospital and that a heart operation was recommended to him. He nevertheless admitted that he had not yet undergone any surgery.[13] On April 24, 2009, respondent's personal doctor, Dr. Luminardo M. Ramos (Dr. Ramos), declared him not fit to work.[14] Consequently, on June 19, 2009, respondent filed a Complaint for disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against petitioners.[15] Respondent claimed that since he was declared fit to work before his deployment, this proved that he sustained his illness while in the performance of his duties aboard the vessel; that he was unable to work for more than 120 days; and that he lost his earning capacity to engage in a work he was skilled to do. Thus, he insisted he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.[16] For their part, petitioners alleged that respondent boarded the vessel on June 2, 2008; that on or about November 21, 2008, respondent was confined at a hospital in Rotterdam; and that upon repatriation, he was referred to Dr. Leticia Abesamis (Dr. Abesamis), the companydesignated doctor, for treatment.[17] Petitioners denied that respondent has a hole in his heart. Instead, they pointed out that on December 27, 2008, Dr. Abesamis diagnosed "him of "aortic regurgitation, moderate" but declared that his condition is not work-related.[18] They averred that despite such declaration, they still continued with respondent's treatment.[19] However, on January 19, 2009, Dr. Abesamis declared that respondent had not reported for follow up despite repeated calls.[20] On April 8, 2009, the company-designated doctor reported that respondent refused surgery.[21] And on April 15, 2009, she reiterated that respondent's condition is not work-related.[22] Petitioners insisted that the determination of the fitness or unfitness of a medically repatriated seafarer rests with the companydesignated physician; and since Dr. Abesamis declared that respondent's illness is not work-related, such determination must prevail.[23] They also stressed that the company-designated doctor continuously treated respondent from, his repatriation in December 2008, until April 2009, hence, her finding that his illness is not work-related must be respected.[24] Finally, petitioners argued that since respondent's illness is not an occupational disease, then he must prove that his work caused his illness; because of his failure to do so, then he is not entitled to disability benefits.[25] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61832 1/6

Select target paragraph3