Eyana v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Al O. Eyana was hired by respondent Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI) as a utility cleaner on board M/V Century. On August 2, 2006, while lifting a 30-kilo block of cheese, petitioner felt a sudden pain in his back and was unable to continue his task. He was medically repatriated to the Philippines on August 17, 2006. Procedural History: Petitioner was treated by Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II, the company-designated physician, who diagnosed him with severe low back pains, numbness, and weakness in his right lower leg, and difficulty bending and sitting. Dr. Alegre's assessment on January 20, 2007, indicated a "Disability Grade of 8" and recommended conservative management with physical therapy, noting persistent back pains and restricted truncal mobility. Petitioner later consulted Dr. Venancio P. Garduce, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon, who issued a medical certificate on June 6, 2007, stating nerve root compression, numbness, sensory deficits, and limited range of motion, concluding a "Disability Grade of One" and unfitness for sea duty. Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter (LA) awarded US$80,000.00 as total and permanent disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, declaring petitioner entitled to Grade Eight disability compensation under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's ruling. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) erred in not considering the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provides full compensation for loss of profession regardless of disability degree, and settled jurisprudence on loss of earning capacity. Petitioner also asserts that his inability to work for more than 120 days, coupled with his persistent back injury, renders him permanently unfit for sea service.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) erred in not considering the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provide full compensation for loss of profession regardless of the degree of disability. Whether the CA and NLRC erred in not considering settled jurisprudence on seafarers' claims declaring that entitlement to full disability compensation is based on the loss of earning capacity and not solely on medical significance; and whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC). Whether petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees. Whether respondent Alain A. Garillos is personally liable for the monetary awards. On the amount of disability compensation.
Ruling
The petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and held Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and Celebrity Cruises, Inc. jointly and severally liable to petitioner Al O. Eyana for US$60,000.00 as total and permanent disability allowance and US$1,000.00 as attorney's fees, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of the CBA: The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish the existence and applicability of the CBA by presenting only unauthenticated pages. Therefore, the CBA deserved no evidentiary weight and could not be the basis for the award of disability compensation. The issue was rendered moot, leaving the resolution to be based on the POEA SEC and relevant labor laws. On entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA SEC: The Court found that the company-designated physician, Dr. Alegre, made his disability assessment on January 20, 2007, which was over five months after the petitioner's repatriation on August 17, 2006. Applying the prevailing doctrine at the time (Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad), the failure to issue a disability rating within the prescribed 120-day period gave rise to a conclusive presumption that the petitioner was totally and permanently disabled. Consequently, the petitioner was not legally compelled to observe the procedure laid down in Section 20-B(3) of the POEA SEC regarding the resort to a third doctor. The Court noted that Dr. Alegre's report indicated persistent back pains and recommended continued physical therapy and increased medication, which, coupled with the petitioner's manual tasks as a utility cleaner, rendered him unable to revert to his customary gainful occupation without serious discomfort or pain. The Court also disagreed with the NLRC's finding that the petitioner's refusal to undergo surgery was a fault, as conservative management with physical therapy was also an option presented, and there was no assurance of full recovery even with surgery. The fact that the petitioner remained unemployed from repatriation until the filing of the petition further supported his permanent disability. On entitlement to attorney's fees: The Court found that while the respondents did not evince bad faith and did not completely shirk their duties, the petitioner was compelled to litigate to obtain total and permanent disability compensation. Therefore, an award of attorney's fees in the amount of US$1,000.00 was deemed reasonable pursuant to Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code. On the personal liability of respondent Garillos: The Court held that as a general rule, corporate officers are not personally liable for corporate liabilities in the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of law. Since there was no allegation or proof that Garillos acted beyond his authority or with malice as PTCI's crewing manager, he could not be held personally liable. On the amount of disability compensation: The Court applied Section 32 of the POEA SEC, which states that a Grade 1 Disability assessment entitles a seafarer to US$60,000.00 (US$50,000.00 x 120%). Although the petitioner was assessed a Grade 8 by Dr. Alegre, the Court's finding of total and permanent disability, based on the failure to assess within the 120-day period, effectively entitled him to the highest compensation category as per established jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the company-designated physician to issue a disability rating within the prescribed 120-day period, prior to the promulgation of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., gives rise to a conclusive presumption of total and permanent disability for a seafarer, entitling them to full disability benefits.