8/23/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
views the CA Decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari was presented
to the CA. Hence, the Court has to examine the CA's Decision from the prism of
whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of
discretion in the NLRC decision."[38]
"Case law states that grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law."[39]
"In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its
findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and the
applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA
should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition."[40]
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA erred in ascribing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, as its finding that Pelagio is entitled
to permanent and total disability benefits is in accord with the evidence on record, as
well as settled legal principles of labor law.
In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz,[41] the Court explained that a seafarer's failure to
obtain any gainful employment for more than 120 days after his medical repatriation
does not ipso facto deem his disability to be permanent and total as the company
designated physician may be given an additional 120 days, or a total of 240 days from
such repatriation, to give the seafarer further treatment, and thereafter, make a
declaration as to the nature of the latter's disability.[42] It was then clarified, however,
that for the company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he
must first perform some significant act to justify an extension (e.g., that the illness still
requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days);
otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent
and total.[43] Hence, it reiterated the guidelines that govern seafarers' claims for
permanent and total disability benefits, to wit:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment
on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time
the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within
the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's
disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within
the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required
further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of
diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65096
4/9