Philimare v. Suganob
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Benedicto F. Suganob was employed as Chief Cook for petitioners for nearly ten years. On his last contract aboard M/V Mekong Star, he experienced shoulder pain six days after boarding and was medically repatriated. Examinations revealed right shoulder sprain, gouty arthritis, urinary tract infection, and hypertension. While initially declared unfit until October 11, 2001, he was later declared fit to work on October 29, 2001, provided he maintained his medications. However, on April 5, 2002, his physician declared him unfit to work due to age and recurring symptoms. Procedural History: Suganob sought permanent disability compensation, which petitioners refused. He filed a complaint for sickness and permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding sickness benefits, permanent disability benefits (US$60,000.00), and attorney's fees. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to determine the degree of Suganob's impediment with the aid of a physician. Suganob then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which treated it as a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals nullified the NLRC's decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, deleting only the award of attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolutions, raising issues regarding the appellate court's treatment of Suganob's petition, the alleged absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, and Suganob's entitlement to disability benefits and sickness allowance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating respondent's petition under Rule 43 as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether respondent is entitled to permanent disability benefits. Whether respondent is entitled to sickness allowance/wages.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' treatment of the petition: The Court held that the policy of encouraging full adjudication of the merits in appeals, especially in labor cases where procedural rules are applied suppletorily, justifies relaxing procedural niceties. The Court emphasized that the averments in the pleadings, not their title, determine the nature of the proceeding. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly treated Suganob's petition, despite being captioned as a Rule 43 petition for review, as a Rule 65 petition for certiorari because its contents complied with the requirements of the latter. This approach avoids injustice and upholds substantive justice over technicalities. On entitlement to permanent disability benefits: The Court found that Suganob is entitled to Grade 1 disability benefits, corresponding to total and permanent disability. It noted that the medical certificates from both the company-designated physician and Suganob's physician indicated that he was not totally cured and was unfit to continue his work. The company physician's clearance was conditional on maintaining medication, and Suganob's physician confirmed recurring symptoms. The Court reasoned that permanent disability is the inability to perform one's job for more than 120 days, which Suganob clearly experienced. Furthermore, his failure to be re-employed by petitioners after repatriation indicated his permanent unfitness. Total disability, in this context, means the incapacity to earn from one's usual work, which Suganob suffered due to his illness preventing him from performing essential duties like lifting heavy items. On entitlement to sickness allowance/wages: The Court affirmed Suganob's entitlement to 120 days of sickness allowance. It cited Section 20, paragraph B, sub-paragraph 3 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which mandates sickness allowance equivalent to the basic wage until declared fit to work or permanent disability is assessed, not exceeding 120 days. Since Suganob was unable to work for more than 120 days and became sick during his employment, as evidenced by his pre-employment clearance, he is entitled to the full 120-day sickness wages as stipulated in the contract.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly treated a petition filed under Rule 43 as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 when its contents complied with the requirements of the latter, as procedural rules may be relaxed in labor cases to avoid injustice. A seafarer is entitled to permanent disability benefits if their illness renders them unable to perform their usual work and earn therefrom, even if a company physician initially declared them fit to work with medication, especially if they are not subsequently re-employed. Sickness allowance for 120 days is also mandated under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for seafarers unable to work due to illness.