Alpha Ship Management v. Calo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Eleosis V. Calo, a seafarer, was hired as Chief Cook on board MV Iris. On July 13, 2004, he suffered back pain and urinated with solid particles. He was diagnosed with urinary tract infection and renal colic. In August 2004, he was diagnosed with kidney problems and urinary tract infection but declared fit for "light duty." On September 19, 2004, he suffered severe pain and was diagnosed with suspected renal and/or ureter calculus, declared "unfit for work," and repatriated on October 12, 2004. He was referred to Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, the company-designated physician, who conducted several examinations from October 20, 2004, to October 14, 2005, diagnosing him with Ureterolithiasis, left, and later Nephrolithiasis, left, with persistence of the stone. On July 28, 2005, respondent consulted Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, who diagnosed him with Hypertension I, Nephrolithiasis, left, and Impediment Grade X (20.15%), declaring him unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity, stating his illness was work-aggravated and that he was not expected to land gainful employment. Respondent underwent surgery for nephrolithiasis on August 31, 2005. On July 18, 2006, Dr. Cruz issued a final Medical Report stating respondent was "stone free and normal" and "fit to work." Respondent filed a claim for disability benefits, which was denied. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, awarding US$60,000.00 as disability compensation and attorney's fees, holding that respondent suffered permanent disability due to his inability to work for more than 120 days despite treatment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, dismissing the complaint, holding that only the company-designated physician's declaration of disability prevails and that Dr. Cruz's July 18, 2006 "fit to work" declaration was valid. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding that the company-designated physician's findings are not conclusive and that respondent was deemed permanently disabled due to the lapse of the 120/240-day period without a definite assessment. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the CA dispositions, arguing respondent is not entitled to disability benefits as he was declared fit to work, and that Dr. Cruz's opinion should prevail over Dr. Vicaldo's. They also contest the award of attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent is entitled to disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers despite being declared fit to work. Whether respondent is entitled to attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed, and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated, with the modification that the awards shall be paid in Philippine pesos.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to disability benefits: The Court reiterated that an employee's disability becomes permanent and total when declared by the company-designated physician, or, in the absence of such declaration, upon the lapse of the 120 or 240-day treatment period if the employee remains unable to engage in gainful employment. In this case, respondent was repatriated on October 12, 2004, and underwent treatment by the company-designated physician until October 14, 2005, exceeding the 240-day period. During this time, Dr. Cruz did not arrive at a definite assessment of respondent's fitness or disability. The declaration of fitness on July 18, 2006, was therefore irrelevant as it came long after the statutory period had elapsed. Consequently, a conclusive presumption of total and permanent disability arose. The Court also clarified that even if an injury or disability is classified as partial and permanent under the POEA Schedule, it can still be considered total and permanent if it incapacitates the seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for more than 120 or 240 days. The fact that respondent's personal physician gave him an Impediment Grade 10 did not preclude a finding of total permanent disability, especially considering the physician's assessment that respondent was unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity and not expected to land gainful employment. The Court found the CA's declaration of permanent total disability to be correct. On the entitlement to attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees, stating that respondent was compelled to litigate due to petitioners' failure to satisfy his valid claim. When an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, he is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
Main Doctrine
An employee's disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 240-day treatment period, while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability.