BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc. v. Jones
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Roy Jason P. Jones (Jones) was hired by petitioner BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc. (BSM) as a Messman. While loading provisions, Jones experienced back pain. He was medically repatriated and referred to the company-designated physician, who cleared him to return to work on July 1, 2015, after a functional capacity evaluation. Jones reported for re-employment but was not rehired. In 2016, his back pain recurred, and two independent physicians declared him unfit for work with permanent disability, citing facet joint hypertrophy encroaching on a nerve root. Procedural History: After failed grievance and conciliation proceedings, the case went to voluntary arbitration. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA-NCMB) awarded Jones permanent total disability benefits. BSM moved for reconsideration, which was partly granted by deleting the sickness allowance award as it had already been paid. BSM appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the PVA-NCMB's decision. BSM's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: BSM assails the CA Decision and Resolution, raising issues on the proper promulgation of the PVA-NCMB Decision and the correctness of awarding permanent and total disability benefits.
Issue(s)
Whether the PVA-NCMB Decision was promulgated properly. Whether the CA was correct in affirming the findings of the PVA-NCMB which awarded permanent and total disability benefits to Jones following the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and the applicability of the CBA, attorney's fees, and interest.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The monetary awards in the PVA-NCMB Decision dated December 8, 2016 and Resolution dated April 27, 2017 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that, if still unpaid, interest shall accrue at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the PVA-NCMB Decision and Resolution until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the proper promulgation of the PVA-NCMB Decision: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the PVA-NCMB Decision was properly promulgated. BSM's claim that the decision was void because the ponente died before promulgation was unsubstantiated. The CA correctly noted that BSM failed to present evidence of the ponente's death and its timing relative to the promulgation. The PVA-NCMB Decision was dated and signed by all three members on December 8, 2016. Even if the ponente died on December 12, 2016, the decision was already finalized and signed by the panel prior to his death. The Court clarified that the date of receipt by the NCMB of the decision is not the date of promulgation. Therefore, BSM failed to present any evidence to controvert the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the PVA-NCMB. On the entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, the applicability of the CBA, attorney's fees, and interest: The Court affirmed Jones's entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, albeit on a different basis than the CA and PVA-NCMB. The Court clarified that Section 20(A) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) does not apply because Jones's illness manifested after the term of his employment contract. However, the Court held that Jones could still claim disability benefits for illnesses manifesting after the contract's term if there is a reasonable linkage between the disease and his work. Jones, as a Messman, performed strenuous physical activities requiring considerable use of his back, such as standing for long periods, climbing, lifting, and moving equipment. His physicians confirmed that his condition (facet joint hypertrophy encroaching on a nerve root) was not responsive to conservative treatment and required surgery, rendering him unfit for sea duties. The Court found substantial evidence that Jones's work exposed him to the risk of developing low back pain, and there was no evidence of notorious negligence on his part. Thus, he was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the CBA is applicable. The "Permanent Medical Unfitness" clause in the CBA does not distinguish between disability due to work-related illness or accident, entitling a seafarer assessed with 50% or more disability to 100% compensation. Jones's condition, as assessed by his doctors, rendered him permanently unfit for further sea service. The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees because Jones was compelled to litigate due to BSM's failure to satisfy his valid claim. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum was imposed on the total monetary award from the finality of the PVA-NCMB Decision and Resolution until full payment, consistent with established jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer whose illness manifests after the employment contract has expired may still claim disability benefits if there is a reasonable linkage between the disease and the work conditions, even if the illness is not listed in Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, provided the seafarer proves the risks involved in the work, that the illness resulted from exposure to these risks, that it was contracted within the period of exposure, and that there was no notorious negligence.