Philasia Shipping v. Tomacruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Andres G. Tomacruz, a seafarer, was employed by PHILASIA Shipping Agency Corporation and/or Intermodal Shipping, Inc. as Oiler #1. During his twelve-month contract, he developed a condition of blood in his urine, which was diagnosed as kidney stones. Despite this, he was initially allowed to continue working. Upon repatriation, further examinations confirmed bilateral kidney stones. The company-designated physician declared him fit to work, but a subsequent independent medical opinion assessed him with Impediment Grade VII (41.80%) due to bilateral nephrolithiasis, stating he was unfit to resume work as a seaman and that his illness was work-aggravated. Procedural History: Tomacruz filed a complaint for disability benefits, sickness wages, and damages against the petitioners. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, giving precedence to the company-designated physician's assessment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, emphasizing the accredited status of the company-designated physician. Tomacruz then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC's decision, finding Tomacruz to be permanently and totally disabled and ordering the petitioners to pay disability benefits and attorney's fees. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and in awarding disability benefits despite the company-designated physician's declaration of fitness to work. They contend that the Court of Appeals improperly applied Article 192 of the Labor Code, asserting that the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) should exclusively govern. The petitioners also challenge the applicability of the Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad ruling and the award of attorney's fees. The core of their argument is that the Court of Appeals disregarded the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, which were based on the company-designated physician's assessment and the POEA SEC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing the factual findings of the NLRC and finding grave abuse of discretion. Whether Tomacruz is entitled to permanent total disability benefits despite the 'fit to work' declaration issued by the company-designated physician.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court of Appeals has the power to review the evidence on record in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to determine if the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed a palpable and demonstrable mistake. As settled in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, the CA is specifically empowered to pass upon evidence to resolve factual issues in labor cases. While factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies are generally respected, they may be examined if the findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of evidence. In this case, the CA correctly identified that the NLRC's failure to apply the legal definition of permanent disability constituted a reversible error. Consequently, the CA did not exceed its jurisdiction in performing a substantive review of the seafarer's medical timeline. On Issue 2: Tomacruz's disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law because he was not assessed within the mandatory 240-day window. Applying Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., a seafarer's temporary total disability may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days if further medical attention is required. If that period expires without a final assessment of fitness or permanent disability, the disability is legally transformed into permanent total disability. Tomacruz was repatriated on November 18, 2002, and was only declared 'fit to work' on July 25, 2003, which is 249 days later. Since the company-designated physician failed to render a decision within the 240-day limit, the legal presumption of permanent total disability under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code applies. Therefore, the subsequent 'fit to work' declaration is irrelevant for the purpose of denying disability benefits.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's temporary total disability is deemed permanent and total pursuant to Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and its implementing rules if it lasts continuously for more than 240 days from repatriation, even if declared fit to work by the company-designated physician after the lapse of the said period.