9/5/2017 G.R. No.

218871

TodayisTuesday,September05,2017

FIRSTDIVISION

January11,2017

G.R.No.218871

JEBSENS*MARITIME,INC.,SEACHEFSLTD.,**andENRIQUEM.ABOITIZ,Petitioners,
vs.

FLORVING.RAPIZ,Respondent.

DECISION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

Assailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1aretheDecision2datedJanuary20,2015andtheResolution3dated
June5,2015oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.130442,whichaffirmedtheDecision4datedJanuary
25, 2013 and the Resolution5 dated May 22, 2013 of the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) of the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) in AC305NCMBNCR78010812 and, accordingly, ordered
petitioners Jebsens Maritime, Inc., Sea Chefs Ltd. (Sea Chefs), and Mr. Enrique Aboitiz (Aboitiz collectively,
petitioners) to jointly and severally pay respondent Florvin G. Rapiz (respondent) permanent and total disability
benefitsintheamountofUS$60,000.00plusattorney'sfeesintheamountofUS$6,000.00ortheirpesoequivalent
atthetimeofpayment.

TheFacts

OnMarch16,2011,Jebsens,onbehalfofitsforeignprincipal,SeaChefs,engagedtheservicesofrespondentto
work on board the M/V Mercury as a buffet cook for a period of nine (9) months with a basic monthly salary of
US$501.00.6OnMarch30,2011,respondentboardedthesaidvessel.SometimeinSeptember2011,respondent
experienced excruciating pain and swelling on his right wrist/forearm while lifting a heavy load of meat. A
consultation with the ship doctor revealed that respondent was suffering from severe "Tendovaginitis
DeQuevain"7whichcausedhismedicalrepatriationsinceitwasnotpossibleforhimtoworkwithoutusinghisright
forearm.8

OnOctober14,2011,9respondentwasrepatriatedtothePhilippinesandunderwentconsultation,medication,and
therapy with the companydesignated physician. After a lengthy treatment, the companydesignated physician
issued a 7th and Final Summary Medical Report10 and a Disability Grading 11 both dated January 24, 2012,
diagnosing respondent with "FlexorCarpi Radialis Tendinitis, Right Sprain, Right thumb Extensor CarpiUlnaris
Tendinitis,Right,"andclassifyinghisconditionasa"Grade11"disabilitypursuanttothedisabilitygradingprovided
for in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment AssociationStandard Employment Contract (POEASEC).
Dissatisfied,respondentconsultedanindependentphysician,whoclassifiedhisconditionasaGrade10disability.12
Thereafter,respondentrequestedpetitionerstopayhimtotalandpermanentdisabilitybenefits,whichthelatterdid
not heed, thus, constraining the former to file a Notice to Arbitrate before the NCMB. As the parties failed to
1wphi1

amicablysettlethecase,thepartiessubmittedthesametotheVAforadjudication.13

Respondent argued, inter alia, that while both the companydesignated and independent physicians gave him
disability ratings of Grade 11 and 10, respectively, he is nevertheless entitled to permanent and total disability
benefitsashewasunabletoworkasacookforaperiodof120daysfromhismedicalrepatriation. 14Ontheother
hand, petitioners maintained that respondent is only entitled to Grade 11 disability benefits pursuant to the
classificationmadebythecompanydesignatedphysician.15

TheVARuling

InaDecision16datedJanuary25,2013,theVAruledinrespondent'sfavorand,accordingly,orderedpetitionersto
payhimpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefitsintheamountofUS$60,000.00plusattorney'sfeesintheamount
ofUS$6,000.00ortheirpesoequivalentatthetimeofpayment.17

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_218871_2017.html 1/5
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 218871
TheVAfoundthatrespondentisentitledtopermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits,consideringthat:(a)hesuffered
hisdisabilityonhisrighthandwhileworkingatpetitioners'vessel(b)hecannolongerpursuehis

work on board the vessel as a cook due to the recurrent nature of his disability and (c) such disability persisted
beyond120daysafterhismedicalrepatriation.18TheVAalsofoundrespondenttobeentitledtoattorney'sfeesas
hewasforcedtolitigatetoprotecthisrightsandinterest.19

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,20 but the same was denied in a Resolution21 dated May 22, 2013.
Aggrieved,theyappealedtotheCAviaapetitionforreview.22

TheCARuling

InaDecision23datedJanuary20,2015,theCAaffirmedtheVAruling.SimilartotheVA'sfindings,theCAheldthat:
(a)respondent'sdisabilityshouldbeconsideredpermanentandtotalbecausehewasunabletocontinuehiswork
as a seaman for more than 120 days from his medical repatriation on October 11, 2011 and (b)he is entitled to
attorney'sfeesashewasforcedtolitigateandincurexpensestoprotecthisrightsandinterests.24

Petitionersmovedforreconsideration, 25whichwas,however,deniedinaResolution26datedJune5,2015hence,
thispetition.

TheIssueBeforetheCourt

TheessentialissuefortheCourt'sresolutioniswhetherornottheCAcorrectlyheldthatrespondentisentitledto
permanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits.

TheCourt'sRuling

Thepetitionismeritorious.

Inthiscase,theVAandtheCA'sawardofpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefitsinrespondent'sfavorwasheavily
anchored on his failure to obtain any gainful employment for more than 120 days after his medical repatriation.
However, in Ace Navigation Company v. Garcia,27the Court explained that the companydesignated physician is
given an additional 120 days, or a total of 240 days from repatriation, to give the seafarer further treatment and,
thereafter,makeadeclarationastothenatureofthelatter'sdisability,viz.:

Astheseprovisionsoperate,theseafarer,uponsignofffromhisvessel,mustreporttothecompany
designatedphysicianwithinthree(3)daysfromarrivalfordiagnosisandtreatment.Forthedurationof
thetreatmentbutinnocasetoexceed120days,theseamanisontemporarytotaldisabilityas he is
totallyunabletowork.Hereceiveshisbasicwageduringthisperioduntilheisdeclaredfittoworkor
histemporarydisabilityisacknowledgedbythecompanytobepermanent,eitherpartiallyortotally,as
his condition is defined under the POEAStandard Employment Contract [(SEC)] and by applicable
Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made
because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability
periodmaybeextendeduptoamaximumof240days,subjecttotherightoftheemployerto
declarewithinthisperiodthatapermanentpartialortotaldisabilityalreadyexists.Theseaman
may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his
medicalcondition.

xxxx

Asweoutlinedabove,atemporarytotaldisabilityonlybecomespermanentwhensodeclaredby
thecompanyphysicianwithintheperiodsheisallowedtodoso,orupontheexpirationofthe
maximum 240day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or
the existence of a permanent disability. In the present case, while the initial 120day treatment or
temporary total disability period was exceeded, the companydesignated doctor duly made a
declaration well within the extended 240day period that the petitioner was fit to work. 28 (Emphases
andunderscoringintheoriginal)

InElburgShipmanagementPhils.,Inc.v.Quiogue,Jr.,29theCourtfurtherclarifiedthatforthecompanydesignated
physiciantoavailoftheextended240dayperiod,hemustfirstperformsomesignificantacttojustifyanextension
(e.g., that the illness still requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days)
otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total.30 Accordingly, the
Court laid down the following guidelines that shall govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability
benefits:

1. The companydesignated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading
withinaperiodof120daysfromthetimetheseafarerreportedtohim

2. If the companydesignated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any
justifiablereason,thentheseafarer'sdisabilitybecomespermanentandtotal

3.Ifthecompanydesignatedphysicianfailstogivehisassessmentwithintheperiodof120dayswithasufficient
justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_218871_2017.html 2/5
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 218871
diagnosisandtreatmentshallbeextendedto240days.Theemployerhastheburdentoprovethatthecompany
designatedphysicianhassufficientjustificationtoextendtheperiodand

4.Ifthecompanydesignatedphysicianstillfailstogivehisassessmentwithintheextendedperiodof240days,then
theseafarer'sdisabilitybecomespermanentandtotal,regardlessofanyjustification.31

Here, records reveal that on October 14, 2011, respondent was medically repatriated for what was initially
diagnosedbytheshipdoctoras"TendovaginitisDeQuevain."AsearlyasJanuary24,2012,orjust102daysfrom
repatriation,the companydesignated physician had already given his final assessment on respondent when he
diagnosed the latter with "Flexor Carpi Radialis Tendinitis, Right Sprain, Right thumb ExtensorCarpi Ulnaris
Tendinitis, Right" and gave a final disability rating of "Grade 11" pursuant to the disability grading provided in the
2010 POEASEC.32 In view of the final disability rating made by the companydesignated physician classifying
respondent's disability as merely permanent and partial33 which was not refuted by the independent physician
exceptthatrespondent'sconditionwasclassifiedasaGrade10disabilityitisplainerrortoawardpermanentand
totaldisabilitybenefitstorespondent.

Moreover,itbearsnotingthatasperrespondent'scontract34withJebsens,hisemploymentiscoveredbythe2010
POEASEC. It is wellsettled that the POEASEC is the law between the parties and, as such, its provisions bind
bothofthem.35UnderSection20(A)(6)ofthe2010POEASEC,thedeterminationoftheproperdisabilitybenefitsto
begiventoaseafarershalldependonthegradingsystemprovidedbySection32ofthesaidcontract,regardlessof
theactualnumberofdaysthattheseafarerunderwenttreatment:

SECTION20.COMPENSATIONANDBENEFITS

A.COMPENSATIONANDBENEFITSFORINJURYORILLNESS

Theliabilitiesoftheemployerwhentheseafarersuffersworkrelatedinjuryorillnessduringthetermofhiscontract
areasfollows:

xxxx

6.Incaseofpermanenttotalorpartialdisabilityoftheseafarercausedbyeitherinjuryorillness[,]the
seafarershallbecompensatedinaccordancewiththescheduleofbenefitsenumeratedinSection32
ofthisContract.Computationofhisbenefitsarisingfromanillnessordiseaseshallbegovernedbythe
ratesandtherulesofcompensationapplicableatthetimetheillnessordiseasewascontracted.

ThedisabilityshallbebasedsolelyonthedisabilitygradingsprovidedunderSection32ofthis
Contract,andshallnotbemeasuredordeterminedbythenumberofdaysaseafarerisunder
treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid. (Emphasis and
underscoringsupplied)

In this case, respondent's disability was already determined as only permanent and partial, in view of its
classification as Grade 11 by the companydesignated physician and Grade 10 by the independent physician. As
such, the award of US$60,000.00 representing Grade 1 (i.e., permanent and total disability) benefits in favor of
respondentclearlyhasnobasisand,consequently,mustbestruckdown.

Bethatasitmay,itremainsundisputedthatrespondentsufferedaninjurywhileonboardtheM/VMercury,awork
related disability that is clearly compensable as it is a permanent and partial disability, as classified by both the
companydesignated and independent physicians. As already adverted to, there is a slight discrepancy with the
classificationsoftheaforesaidphysicians,astheformerratedrespondent'sdisabilityasGrade11,whilethelatter's
ratingwasGrade10.Inthisregard,theCourtrulesthatthefindingsofthecompanydesignatedphysicianshould
prevail,consideringthatheexamined,diagnosed,andtreatedrespondentfromhisrepatriationonOctober14,2011
until he was assessed with a Grade 11 disability rating on January 24, 2012 whereas the independent physician
only examined him sparingly on March 13, 2012. In Formerly INC ShipmanagementIncorporated (now INC
NavigationCo.Philippines,Inc.)v.Rosales,36theCourtheldthatunderthesecircumstances,theassessmentofthe
companydesignatedphysicianismorecredibleforhavingbeenarrivedataftermonthsofmedicalattendanceand
diagnosis,comparedwiththeassessmentofaprivatephysiciandoneinonedayonthebasisofanexaminationor
existing medical records.37 In view of the foregoing, respondent is therefore entitled to permanent and partial
disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 11 rating in the amount of US$7,465.00 or its peso equivalent at the
timeofpayment,38whichshallthenearnlegalinterestattherateofsixpercent(6%)perannumfromthefinalityof
thisDecisionuntilfullypaid.39

Finally,theCourtfindsthattheawardofattorney'sfeeslackslegalbasisand,perforce,shouldbedeleted.40

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisiondatedJanuary20,2015andtheResolutiondatedJune5,
2015 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 130442 are hereby MODIFIED, ordering petitioners Jebsens
Maritime, Inc., Sea Chefs Ltd., and Enrique M. Aboitiz to jointly and severally pay respondent Florvin G. Rapiz
permanentandpartialdisabilitybenefitscorrespondingtoaGrade11disabilityunderthe2010POEASECinthe
amountofUS$7,465.00oritspesoequivalentatthetimeofpayment,withlegalinterestattherateofsixpercent
(6%)perannumfromthefinalityofthisDecisionuntilfullypaid.

SOORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_218871_2017.html 3/5
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 218871
ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ALFREDOBENJAMINS.CAGUIOA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttotheSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhad
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*
"JEBSEN"inthepetitionbeforetheCourt(seerollo,p.15).
**
"SEACHEFSCRUISESLTD"intheContractofEmployment(seeid.at128).
1
Id.at1554.
2
Id.at5663.PennedbyAssociateJusticeSocorroB.lntingwithAssociateJusticesHakimS.Abdulwahid
andPriscillaJ.BaltazarPadillaconcurring.
3
Id.at6667.
4
CArollo,pp.3955.SignedbyChairmanAVAJesusS.SiloandMembersAVAAllanS.MontanoandAVA
FroilanA.Bagabaldo.
5
Id.at5657.
6
SeeContractofEmploymentrollo,p.128.

7
"DeQuervain'sTenosynovitis"intheInitialMedicalReportdatedOctober18,2011(seeid.at131)and7th
and Final Summary Medical Report dated January 24, 2012 (see id. at 142). "De Quervain tendinitis,"
medicallydefinedas"[a]tendonisthick,bendabletissuethatconnectsmuscletobone.Twotendonsrunfrom
the back of your thumb down the side of your wrist. [It] is caused when these tendons are swollen and
irritated." See <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000537.htm> and
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pinc/articles/PMC2568250/pdf/jnma001660036.pdf>(visitedJanuary9,2017).
8
Rollo,p.57.
9
Inthevariousmedicalreports,respondent'sdateofrepatriationwasonOctober13,2011(seeid.at131
143).
10
Id.at142143.
11
CArollo,p.88.
12
SeeMedicalEvaluationReportdatedMarch13,2012rollo,pp.145146.
13
Id.at57.
14
SeePositionPaperdatedOctober29,2012CArollo,pp.91101.
15
SeePositionPaperdatedOctober30,2012id.at5881.
16
Id.at3955.
17
Id.at5455.
18
Seeid.at5153.
19
Id.at54.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_218871_2017.html 4/5
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 218871
20
Notattachedtotherecordsofthiscase.
21
CArollo,pp.5657.
22
Id.at329.
23
Rollo,pp.5663.
24
Seeid.at5962.
25
SeemotionforreconsiderationdatedFebruary16,2015CArollo,pp.364387.
26
Rollo,pp.6667.
27
G.R.No.207804,June17,2015,759SCRA274.
28
Id.at283,citingVergarav.HammoniaMaritimeServices,Inc.,588Phil.895,912913(2008).
29
G.R.No.211882,July29,2015,764SCRA431.
30
Seeid.at453.
31
Id.at453454.
32
Seerollo,pp.142143andCArollo,p.88.
33
Section32ofthe2010POEASECprovidesthatonlydisabilitiesclassifiedasGrade1shallbedeemedas
permanentandtotal.
34
Seerollo,p.128.
35
MagsaysayMaritimeCorporationv.Simbajon,G.R.No.203472,July9,2014,729SCRA631,645,citing
PhilippineHammoniaShipAgency,Inc.v.Dumadag,G.R.No.194362,June26,2013,700SCRA53,65.
36
G.R.No.195832,October1,2014,737SCRA438.
37
Id.at453.
38
Under Section 32 of the 20 l 0 PO EASEC, a seafarer who suffers a Grade 11 disability is entitled to
US$50,000.00multipliedby14.93%,oratotalofUS$7,465.00.
39
SeeNacarv.GalleryFrames,716Phil.267,278283(2013).
40
"Anent the issue on attorney's fees, the general rule is that the same cannot be recovered as part of
damagesbecauseofthepolicythatnopremiumshouldbeplacedontherighttolitigate.Theyarenottobe
awardedeverytimeapartywinsasuit.Thepowerofthecourttoawardattorney'sfeesunderArticle2208of
the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to
litigatewiththirdpersonsortoincurexpensestoprotecthisrights,stillattorney'sfeesmaynotbeawarded
where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an
erroneousconvictionoftherighteousnessofhiscause."(SpousesVergarav.Sonkin,G.R.No.193659,June
15,2015,757SCRA442,456457citationsomitted)

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_218871_2017.html 5/5