Jebsen Maritime Inc., Sea Chefs Ltd., and Enrique M. Aboitiz versus versus Florvin . !a"iz, ! #$%%&$, $$ Januar' #($& FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 218871, January 11, 2017 JEBSENS* MARITIME, INC.,SEA CEFS !TD., ** AND ENRI"#E M. ABOITI$, )etitioners, v.F!ORVIN G. RA%I$ , !es"ondent. DECISION %ER!AS&BERNABE, J.'
Assa Assail iled ed in this his peti petiti tio on for for revi revieew on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated January 20, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated June 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA"#.R. $% &o. 130''2, which affir(ed the Decision' dated January 25, 2013 and the Resolution5 dated )ay 22, 2013 of the *ffice of the %an %anel of +olu +olunt ntar ary y Ari Aritr trat ator orss +A! +A! of the the &ati &ation onal al Conc Concil ilia iati tion on and and )ediation -oard &C)-! in AC"305"&C)-"&CR"/"01"0/"12 and, accordin accordinly, ly, ordered ordered petitione petitioners rs Jesens Jesens )ariti(e, )ariti(e, nc., $ea Chefs td. td. $ea $ea Chefs! Chefs!,, and )r. nri4u nri4uee Aoiti Aoiti Aoit Aoiti6 i6 collec collectiv tively ely,, petitioners! to 7ointly and severally pay respondent 8lorvin #. Rapi respondent! per(anent and total disaility enefits in the a(ount of 9$:;0,000.00 plus attorney
*n )arch 1;, 2011, Jesens, on ehalf of its forein principal, $ea Chefs, enaed the services of respondent to wor= on oard the )>+ )ercury as a uffet coo= for a period of nine ?! (onths with a asic (ont (onthl hly y sala salary ry of 9$:5 9$:501 01.0 .00. 0.; *n )a )arc rch h 30, 30, 2011 2011,, resp respon onde dent nt oarded the said vessel. $o(eti(e in $epte(er 2011, respondent e@perienced e@cruciatin pain and swellin on his riht wrist>forear( while liftin a heavy load of (eat. A consultation with the ship doctor revealed that respondent was sufferin fro( severe *endova+ini which cause caused d his (edica (edicall repatr repatriat iation ion *endova+initis tis e-uevain e-uevain which since it was not possile for hi( to wor= without usin his riht forear(./ *n *ctoer 1', 2011, ? responde respondent nt was repatriate repatriated d to the %hilippines %hilippines and and unde underw rwen entt cons consul ulta tati tion on,, (edi (edica cati tion on,, and and ther therap apy y with with the the co(p co(pan any"d y"des esi ina nate ted d phys physic icia ian. n. Afte Afterr a len lenth thy y trea treat( t(en ent, t, the the th co(p co(pan any"d y"des esi ina nate ted d phys physic icia ian n issu issued ed a and and 8ina 8inall $u(( $u((ar ary y
)edical Report 10 and a Disaility #radin 11 oth dated January 2', 2012, 2012, diano dianosin sin respon responden dentt with with Fleor Car"i !adialis *endinitis, !i+ht/ S"rain, !i+ht thumb/ Etensor Car"i 0lnaris *endinitis, !i+ht , and classifyin his condition as a #rade 11 disaility pursuant to the disaility radin provided for in the 2010 %hilippine *verseas (ploy(ent (ploy(ent Associatio Association"$tan n"$tandard dard (ploy(ent (ploy(ent Contract Contract %*A" $C!. Dissatisfied, respondent consulted an independent physician, who classified his condition as a #rade 10 disaility. 12Bhereafter, respondent re4uested petitioners to pay hi( total and per(anent disaility enefits, which the latter did not heed, thus, constrainin the for(er to file a &otice to Aritrate efore the &C)-. As the parties failed to a(icaly settle the case, the parties su(itted the sa(e to the +A for ad7udication. 13 Respon Responden dentt arued arued,, inte interr alia alia, that while oth the co(pany" desinated and independent physicians ave hi( disaility ratins of #rad #radee 11 and 10, 10, resp respeectiv ctiveely, ly, he is neve everthe rthele less ss entit ntitle led d to per(anent and total disaility enefits as he was unale to wor= as a coo= for a period of 120 days fro( his (edical repatriation. 1' *n the other hand, petitioners (aintained that respondent is only entitled to #rade 11 disaility enefits pursuant to the classification (ade y the co(pany"desinated physician. 15chanrolesvirtuallawlir T() VA Ru-n/
n a Decision 1; dated January 25, 2013, the +A ruled in respondent
n a Decision 23 dated January 20, 2015, the CA affir(ed the +A ruli rulin n.. $i(i $i(ila larr to the the +A
Bhe essential issue for the Court
Bhe
petition
is
(eritorious.
n this case, the +A and the CA
r)ur) ur+()r 5)a- a++)n+on, +()n +() +)53orary +o+a- a6-+y 3)ro 5ay 6) )4+)n) ) u3 +o a 5a4 5a45 5u5 o 20 20 ay, ay, u6 u69) 9)+ +o +() r/(+ /(+ o +() )53-oy)r +o )-ar) :+(n +( 3)ro +(a+ a 3)r5an)n+ 3ar+a 3ar+a-- or +o+a+o+a- a6 a6- -+y +y a-r)a a-r)ay y )4+ )4+.. T() )a5an )a5an 5ay o our) a-o 6) )-ar) + +o :or; a+ any +5) u( )-ara+on 9u+) 6y ( 5)a- on+on.
@
@
@
@
As we outlined aove, a +)53orary +o+a- a6-+y on-y 6)o5) 3)r5an)n+ :()n o )-ar) 6y +() o53any 3(yan :+(n +() 3)ro () a--o:) +o o o, or u3on +() )43ra+on o +() 5a45u5 20&ay 5)a+r)a+5)n+ 3)ro :+(ou+ a )-ara+on o )+()r +n) +o :or; or +() )4+)n) o a 3)r5an)n+ 3 )r5an)n+ a6-+y . n the pres presen entt case case,, whil whilee the the init initia iall 120" 120"da day y trea treat( t(en entt or te(p te(por orar ary y tota totall disa disail ilit ity y peri period od was was e@ce e@ceed eded ed,, the the co(pany"desinated doctor duly (ade a declaration well within the e@tended 2'0"day period that the petitioner was fit to wor=. 2/ (phas (phases es and unders underscor corin in in the oriinal! n Elbur+ Shi"mana+ement )hils., Inc. v. -uio+ue, Jr. ,2? the Court further clarified that for the co(pany"desinated physician to avail of the e@tended 2'0"day period, he (ust first perfor( so(e sinificant act to 7ustify an e@tension e.., that the illness still re4uires (edical attendance eyond the initial 120 days ut not to e@ceed 2'0 days!6 otherwise, the seafarer
treat(ent or seafarer was uncooperative!, then the period of dianosis and treat(ent shall e e@tended to 2'0 days. Bhe e(ployer has the urden to prove that the co(pany" desinated physician has sufficient 7ustification to e@tend the period6 and '. f the co(pany co(pany"desi "desinate nated d physician physician still still fails to ive ive his assess(ent within the e@tended period of 2'0 days, then the seafa seafarer rer
)oreover, it ears notin that as per respondent
20.
C*)%& %&$AB*&
A&D A&D
-&8 &8B$
A. C*)%&$AB*& A&D -&8B$ 8*R &J9RG *R &$$ Bhe liailities of the e(ployer when the seafarer suffers wor= wor="re "rela late ted d in7u in7ury ry or illn illnes esss duri durin n the the ter( ter( of his his contract are as follows @@@@
;. n case of per(anent total or partial ial disa disai ili lity ty of the the seaf seafar arer er caus caused ed y eith either er in7u in7urry or illn llnessE essE,F ,F the the seaf seafar arer er shall hall e co(pensated in accordance with the schedule of enefits enu(erated in $ection 32 of this Contract. Co(putation of his enefits arisin fro( an illness or disease shall e overned y the rates and the rules of co(pensation applicale at the ti(e the illness or disease was contracted. T() a6-+y (a-- 6) 6a) o-)-y on +() a6-+y /ran/ 3ro<) un)r S)+on =2 o +( Con+ra+, an (a-- no+ 6) 5)aur) or )+)r5n) 6y +() nu56)r o ay ay a )a )aar ar)r )r un un) )rr +r)a +r)a+5 +5)n )n++ or +() +() nu56)r o ay n :(( ;n) a--o:an) 3a. (phasis and under derscorin supplied!
n this case, respondent+ )ercury, a wor="related disaility that is clearly co(pensale as it is a per(anent and partial disaility, as clas classi sifie fied d y o oth th the the co(pa co(pany ny"de "desi sin nat ated ed and and inde indepe pend nden entt physicians. As already adverted to, there is a sliht discrepancy with the classifications of the aforesaid physicians, as the for(er rated respon responden dent
records.3 n view of the foreoin, respondent is therefore entitled to per(anent and partial disaility enefits correspondin to a #rade 11 ratin in the a(ount of 9$:,';5.00 or its peso e4uivalent at the ti(e of pay(ent,3/ which shall then earn leal interest at the rate of si@ percent ;H! per annu( fro( the finality of this Decision until fully paid.3? 8inally, the Court finds that the award of attorneyEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Bhe Bhe Deci Decisi sio on dat dated January 20, 2015 and the Resolution Resolution dated June 5, 2015 of of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. $% &o. 130''2 are herey MODIFIED , orderin petitioners Jesens )ariti(e, nc., $ea Chefs td., and nri4ue ). Aoiti to 7ointly and severally pay respondent 8lorvin #. Rapi per(anent and partial disaility enefits correspondin to a #rade 11 disaility under the 2010 %*A"$C in the a(ount of 9$:,';5.00 or its peso e4uivalent at the ti(e of pay(ent, with leal interest at the rate of si@ percent ;H! per annu( fro( the finality of this Decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED.
