Fil-Star Maritime v. Rosete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Hanziel O. Rosete was hired as third officer and later as second officer by petitioner Fil-Star Maritime Corporation. During his employment, he was exposed to minute particles of soda ash. On January 5, 2006, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit to work. On February 14, 2006, he experienced blurring in his left eye, diagnosed as Central Retinal Vein Occlusion. He underwent several laser surgeries in Japan and upon repatriation, further surgeries in the Philippines. On August 11, 2006, his left eye was declared legally blind with poor possibility of recovery, classified as partial permanent disability. Petitioners denied his claim for permanent total disability, rating his incapacity as Grade 7. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding US$105,000.00 based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the LA's decision, reducing the benefits to US$20,900.00 (Grade 7) based on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Both parties moved for reconsideration, which were denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's decision, reinstating the LA's award of US$105,000.00, holding that the respondent was entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the POEA-SEC and that a causal connection between his work and illness was established. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that respondent was entitled to total permanent disability benefits and in applying the CBA provision for the award.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed patent and reversible error in ruling that private respondent Hanziel O. Rosete is entitled to total permanent disability benefits. Whether the Court of Appeals committed patent and reversible error in ruling that private respondent Hanziel O. Rosete is entitled to disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Whether the Court of Appeals committed patent and reversible error in ruling that private respondent Hanziel O. Rosete is entitled to attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court modified the Court of Appeals' decision, reducing the disability benefits to US$60,000.00 based on the POEA-SEC, while affirming all other aspects of the CA Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to total permanent disability benefits: The Court affirmed that respondent is entitled to disability benefits. Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, though not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, resulted in the loss of sight of one eye, which is covered under Section 32. Furthermore, Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed are work-related, a presumption the petitioners failed to overturn. The Court also clarified that a total disability does not require absolute helplessness but rather the inability to perform one's customary job for more than 120 days. Since respondent was unable to return to his job as a seafarer and his disability effectively barred him from future employment in maritime roles, he was deemed to be suffering from permanent total disability. On the basis for disability benefits (CBA vs. POEA-SEC): The Court ruled that the respondent's entitlement to permanent total disability benefits should be based on his POEA-SEC, not the CBA. Article 28 of the CBA specifically pertains to permanent disability resulting from an accident, which respondent failed to prove. Therefore, the CBA provision was inapplicable. The POEA-SEC, particularly Section 20(B)(6), governs the computation of benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses, and Section 32 provides the schedule of benefits. Under the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions, Grade 1 disability (permanent total disability) is compensated at US$60,000.00. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees. Respondent was compelled to litigate to claim his disability benefits, making the award justified under Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code, which allows recovery of attorney's fees in actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer suffering from Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, which resulted in legal blindness of one eye and rendered him unable to perform his job for more than 120 days, is entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, not the CBA, if the illness was not caused by an accident. The disputable presumption that a non-listed illness is work-related stands unless overturned by contrary evidence.