Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Maersk Filipinas Crewing vs. Ramos

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

212. Maersk Filipinas Crewing vs.

Ramos
Since private respondent's demand for disability benefit[s] was rejected by
January 18, 2017, G.R. No. 184256 petitioners, he then filed with the NLRC a complaint for total permanent
MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC., and MAERSK CO. IOM disability, illness allowance, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
LTD., Petitioners, fees. The parties filed with the NLRC their respective position papers, reply,
vs. and rejoinder.
JOSELITO R. RAMOS, Respondent.
DECISION Meanwhile, in his medical report dated July 31, 2002, Dr. Dolor stated that
although private respondent's left eye cannot be improved by medical
SERENO, CJ.: treatment, he can return to duty and is still fit to work. His normal right eye
can compensate for the discrepancy with the use of correctional glasses. On
The Petition for Review1 before us assails the Decision2 and Resolution3 of August 30, 2002, petitioners paid private respondent's illness allowance
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 94964, affirming with equivalent to one hundred twenty (120) days salary.
modification the Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). The CA affirmed the findings of the NLRC that petitioners Maersk On October 5, 2002, private respondent was examined by Dr. Roseny Mae
Filipinas Crewing, Inc. (Maersk Inc.) and the Maersk Co. IOM, Ltd. (Maersk Catipon-Singson of Casa Medica, Inc. (formerly MEDISERV Southmall, Inc.),
Ltd.) were liable to private respondent Joselito Ramos for disability benefits. Alabang, Muntinlupa City and was diagnosed to have ''traumatic cataract with
The appellate court, however, deleted the awards for moral and exemplary corneal scaring, updrawn pupil of the anterior segment of maculapathy OS.
damages. 5 His best corrected vision is 20/400 with difficulty." Dr. Catipon-Singson
opined that private respondent "cannot be employed for any work requiring
As culled from the records of the CA, the antecedent facts are as follows: good vision unless condition improves."

The facts of the case from which the present petition arose show that on On November 19, 2002, private respondent visited again the ophthalmologist
October 3, 2001, petitioner Maersk ltd., through its local manning agent at the Medical Center Manila who recommended "cataract surgery with intra-
petitioner Maersk Inc., employed private respondent as able-seaman of M/V ocular lens implantation," after evaluation of the retina shall have been done."
NKOSSA II for a period of four (4) months. Within the contract period and
while on board the vessel, on November 14, 2001, private respondent’s left In his letter dated January 13, 2003 addressed to Jerome de los Angeles,
eye was hit by a screw. He was repatriated to Manila on November 21, 2001 General Manager of petitioner Maersk Inc., Dr. Dolor answered that the
and was referred to Dr. Salvador Salceda, the company-designated evaluation of the physician from ONM could not have progressed in such a
physician, for [a] check-up. short period of time, which is approximately one month after he issued the
medical report dated April 13, 2002, and a review of the medical reports from
Private respondent was examined by Dr. Anthony Martin S. Dolor at the PGH and the tonometry findings on the left and right eye showed that they
Medical Center Manila on November 26, 2001 and was diagnosed with were within normal range, hence, could not be labeled as glaucoma. 6
"corneal scar and cystic macula, left, post-traumatic." On November 29,
2001, he underwent a "repair of corneal perforation and removal of foreign On 15 May 2003, the labor arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision7 dismissing the
body to anterior chamber, left eye." He was discharged on December 2, 2001 Complaint:
with prescribed home medications and had regular check-ups. He was
referred to another ophthalmologist who opined that "no more improvement WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for
can be attained on the left eye but patient can return back to duty with the left being prematurely filed. The parties are enjoined to comply with the
eye disabled by 30%." provisions of the POEA Standard Contract in relation to the AMOSUP-
MAERSK Company CSA. In the meantime, respondents Maersk Filipinas
On May 22, 2002, he was examined by Dr. Angel C. Aliwalas, Jr. at the Crewing, Inc., and The Maersk Co., Ltd., are directed to provide continued
Ospital ng Muntinlupa (ONM), Alabang, Muntinlupa City, and was diagnosed medical assistance to complainant Joselito Ramos until he is declared fit to
with "corneal scar with post-traumatic cataract formation, left eye." On May work, or the degree of his disability has been assessed in accordance with
28, 2002, he underwent [an] eye examination and glaucoma test at the the terms of the contract and the CBA.
Philippine General Hospital (PGH), Manila.

Page 1 of 5
SO ORDERED.8 declared non-working by NLRC NCR, itself. It is only just and fair, therefore,
that Complainant should be given until the next working day to perfect his
The LA held that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration appeal." 17
(POEA)-approved contract and Collective Bargaining Agreement expressly
provided for a situation in which the seafarer's appointed doctor disagrees As regards the need to appoint a third doctor, the NLRC found it unnecessary
with the company-designated physician. In this case, both parties may agree considering that "there is really no disagreement between respondents'
to the appointment of a third doctor, whose assessment would then be final company-designated physician and Complainant's physicians as to the
on both parties.9 According to the LA, both failed to avail themselves of this percentage [30%] of visual impairment of his left eye." 18 Thus, respondent
remedy. was awarded disability compensation benefit in the amount of USD6,270 for
Grade 12 impediment, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.19
On 28 July 2003, respondent filed a Manifestation 10 stating that on 21 July
2003, his counsel's messenger tried to file with the NLRC a Notice of Appeal On 17 February 2006, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,20 which
with Memorandum of Appeal. 11 However, upon arriving at around four o' the NLRC denied in its Resolution dated 31 March 2006.21
clock in the afternoon, the messenger found that the NLRC office was
already closed due to a jeepney strike. He then decided to file and serve Upon intermediate appellate review, the CA rendered a Decision 22 on 31 July
copies of the notice with memorandum by registered mail. It was only on the 2007, the dispositive portion of which reads:
next day, 22 July 2003, that the filing of the rest of the copies and the
payment of fees were completed. 12 WHEREFORE, the assailed resolutions dated January 31, 2006 and March
31, 2006 of public respondent NLRC, 2nd Division, in NLRC NCR CA No.
In reply to respondent's Manifestation, petitioners filed a Motion for Outright 037183-03 (NLRC NCR Case No. OFW-M-02-06-1591-00) are AFFIRMED
Dismissal on the ground that the appeal had been filed out of time. with the MODIFICATION that the awards for moral and exemplary damages
are DELETED.
In the meantime, on 30 July and 12 September 2003, respondent underwent
cataract extraction on both eyes. 13 On 7 January 2004, he was fitted with SO ORDERED.23
correctional glasses and evaluated. Dr. Dolor found that the former's "right
eye is 20/20, the left eye is 20/70, and when both eyes are being used, his The CA affirmed all the findings of the NLRC on both procedural and
best corrected vision is 20/20." On the basis of that report, respondent was substantive issues, but deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages,
pronounced fit to work. 14 because there was no "sufficient factual legal basis for the awards x x
x."24 Here, the appellate court held that respondent "presented no proof of his
On 31 January 2006, the NLRC issued a Resolution 15 granting respondent's moral suffering, mental anguish, fright or serious anxiety and/or any fraud,
appeal and setting aside the LA's decision: malice or bad faith on the part of the petitioner."25 Consequently, there being
no moral damages, the award of exemplary damages did not lie. 26 However,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant's appeal is partly because respondent was compelled to litigate to protect his interests, the CA
GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter's Assailed Decision in the above-entitled case sustained the award for attorney's fees. 27
is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered ordering
Respondents to jointly and severally pay Complainant the following: 1) On 24 August 2007, petitioners filed a Motion for Partial
disability compensation benefit in the amount of US $6,270.00; 2) moral and Reconsideration,28 arguing for the first time that respondent's appeal filed
exemplary damages in the form of interest at 12% of US $6,270.00 per with the NLRC was not perfected within the reglementary period. 29 They
annum, reckoned from April 13, 2002, up to the time of payment of said alleged that they received a copy of the Manifestation of respondent denying
disability compensation benefit; and 3) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of that he had authorized the Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan Law Offices
his total monetary award. (SVBB) to continue representing him after the issuance of the LA's Decision
on 15 May 2003.30 Hence, they argued respondent was not bound by the
SO ORDERED. 16 notice of appeal or by the decisions rendered by the NLRC. 31

The NLRC found that it was not "[respondent's] fault that he was not able to On 8 August 2008, the CA issued a Resolution 32 denying the
perfect his appeal on July 21, 2003, the latter part of said day having been aforementioned motion.33

Page 2 of 5
which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the
The CA held that respondent did not present any proof in support of his name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order
Manifestation that the SVBB had no authority to represent him before the as justice requires. An attorney willfully appearing in court for a person
NLRC or in the continuation of the case in court. The appellate court then without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for
ruled that the "presumption that SVBB is authorized to represent him before contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
the NLRC and in the case at bar stands."34 transactions. (Emphasis ours)

Hence, this appeal. 35 Aside from the presumption of authority to represent a client in all stages of
litigation, an attorney's appearance is also presumed to be with the previous
ISSUES knowledge and consent of the litigant until the contrary is shown.40

From the foregoing, the issues may be reduced to the following: This presumption is strong, as the "mere denial by a party that he has
1. Whether counsel of respondent was authorized to represent the latter after authorized an attorney to appear for him, in the absence of a compelling
the LA had rendered its Decision on 15 May 2003; reason, is insufficient to overcome the presumption, especially when denial
2. Whether respondent perfected his appeal to the NLRC; and comes after the rendition of an adverse judgment."41
3. Whether respondent is partially disabled and therefore entitled to disability
compensation.1âwphi1 In his Manifestation, private respondent averred that he ceased
communications with the SVBB after 15 May 2003; that he did not cause the
THE COURT'S RULING re-filing of his case; and that he did not sign any document for the
continuation of his case. However, he gave no cogent reason for this
We shall deal with the issues seriatim. disavowal. As pointed out by the CA, he presented no evidence other than
the denial in his Manifestation.
The SVBB law firm is presumed to
have authority to represent Moreover, respondent only sent his Manifestation disclaiming the SVBB's
respondent. authority on 1 February 2007. It was submitted almost four years after the LA
had dismissed his complaint for having been prematurely filed. By that time,
Anent the first procedural issue, petitioners allege that although the authority through the SVBB's efforts, the NLRC had already rendered a Decision
of an attorney to appear for and on behalf of a party may be assumed, it can favorable to respondent.
still be challenged by the adverse party concerned.36 In this case, petitioners
argue that the presumption of the SVBB 's authority to continue representing It puzzles us why respondent would renounce the authority of his supposed
respondent was "destroyed upon his filing of the Manifestation" precisely counsel at this late stage. The attempt of petitioners to use this circumstance
denying that authority.37 It then follows that the appeal filed by the law firm to their advantage - in order to avoid payment of liability - should not be given
was unauthorized. As such, the appeal did not prevent the LA Decision dated any weight by this Court.
15 May 2003 from attaining finality. 38
Respondent perfected his appeal
We disagree. before the NLRC.

Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court 39 provides a presumption on a As to the second procedural issue, petitioners argue that respondent did not
lawyer's appearance on behalf of a client: perfect his appeal before the NLRC, considering his failure to file copies of
the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal and to pay the necessary
SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. - An attorney is presumed to be fees to the NLRC on time.
properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no
written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court We again disagree.
for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on
reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who
assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under

Page 3 of 5
The failure of respondent to file his appeal before the NLRC must be
contextualized.1avvphi1 We quote with favor its findings, as affirmed by the Disability does not refer to the injury or the pain that it has occasioned, but to
CA: the loss or impairment of earning capacity. There is disability when there is a
diminution of earning power because of actual absence from work. This
As regards the first issue, there is no question that July 21, 2003 was absence must be due to the injury or illness arising from, and in the course
supposed to be the last day for the filing by Complainant of his appeal form of, employment. Thus, the basis of compensation is reduction of earning
the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Incidentally, a working "day" at the NLRC NCR power. 49
consists of eight (8) hours of work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Complainant,
therefore, had until 5:00 p.m. of July 21, 2003 to perfect his appeal. Notably, Section 2 of Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation
his counsel's messenger reached the NLRC NCR at 4:00 p.m. of that day for provides:
the sole purpose of perfecting Complainant's appeal. Unfortunately, however,
the NLRC NCR closed its Office at 3:30 p.m., earlier than the normal closing (c) A disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness
time of 5:00 p.m., because of a jeepney strike. Clearly, it was not the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his
Complainant's fault that he was not able to perfect his appeal on July 21, body.
2003, the latter part of said day having been declared non-working by NLRC
NCR, itself. It is only just and fair, therefore, that Complainant should be Permanent partial disability occurs when an employee loses the use of any
given until the next working day to perfect his appeal. 42 particular anatomical part of his body which disables him to continue with his
former work.50
In any case, we have always held that the "[c]ourts have the prerogative to
relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the In this case, while petitioners' own company-designated physician, Dr. Dolor,
duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the certified that respondent was still fit to work, the former admitted in the same
parties' right to due process."43 breath that respondent's left eye could no longer be improved by medical
treatment. As early as 13 April 2002, Dr. Dolor had in fact diagnosed
Respondent suffers from permanent respondent's left eye as permanently disabled, to wit:
partial disability and is entitled to
disability compensation. Present ophthalmologic examination showed corneal scar and a cystic
macula at the left eye. Vision on the right eye is 20/20 and JI while the left
On the substantive issue, petitioners submit that the award of disability showed only 20/60 and J6. Our ophthalmologist opined that no more
compensation is not warranted, because the injury suffered by respondent improvement can be attained on the left eye but patient can return back to
cannot be considered permanent. It is curable or can be corrected, 44 since duty with left eye disabled by 30%.51
his continued fitness to work was certified by the company-designated
physician in two medical reports. 45 Petitioners' argument that the injury was curable because respondent
underwent cataract extraction in on both eyes in 2003, and Dr. Dolor issued a
On the other hand, respondent asserts that no less than the company- medical evaluation finding that respondent's best corrected vision for both
designated physician had established the extent of the former's visual eyes was 20/20 (with correctional glasses),52 are thus inconsequential. The
impairment at 30%. Respondent posits that because of the injury to his left curability of the injury "does not preclude an award for disability because, in
eye and loss of vision, he has suffered the impairment of his earning capacity labor laws, disability need not render the seafarer absolutely helpless or
and can no longer practice his profession as a seaman.46 feeble to be compensable; it is enough that it incapacitates him to perform his
customary work."53
We rule for respondent.
Indeed, the operation, which supposedly led to the correction of respondent's
Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is vision, took place in 2003. Respondent sustained his injury way back in
not our function to weigh and try the evidence all over again. Findings of fact 2001. During the span of roughly two years, he was not able to
of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally reassume work as a seaman, resulting in the loss and impairment of his
accorded finality and respect.47 As long as these findings are supported by earning capacity. It is also interesting to note that despite petitioners'
substantial evidence, they must be upheld.48

Page 4 of 5
contentions that respondent had been diagnosed as fit to return to Grade 12. Under Section 30-A 57 of the standard contract, a seafarer
work, no reemployment offer was ever extended to him. who suffered an impediment grade of Grade 12 is entitled to 10.45% of
the maximum rate. Significantly, the company physician did not certify
As to the extent and amount of compensation, petitioners stress that Complainant as permanently unfit for further sea service in any
capacity. The company physician certified that'' xxx patient can return
Section 3254 of the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the back to duty with the left eye disabled by 301Y.1" (Page 39, Records).
Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels (Standard Complainant, therefore, is not entitled to 100% disability compensation
Employment Contract) only provides disability compensation benefits for at benefit, but merely 10.451Yo of US$60,000.00, which is computed as
least 50% loss of vision in one eye. Since the schedule does not include the follows: US$60,000.00 x 10.45% = US$6,270.00. Respondents, therefore,
injury suffered by respondent, they assert that the award of disability benefits are liable to Complainant for US$6,270.00 as compensation benefit for
is unwarranted. his permanent partial disability, to be paid in Philippine Currency
equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of
The Court finds no merit in this argument. payment. 58 (Emphases ours)

The POEA Standard Employment Contract was designed primarily for the With respect to the award of attorney's fees, this Court affirms the findings of
protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment the CA in toto. Respondent is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Article
on board ocean-going vessels. In resolving disputes regarding disability 2208(2) of the Civil Code,59 which justifies the award of attorney's fees in
benefits, its provisions must be "construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer liability
liberally in the seamen's favor, because only then can the provisions be given laws.
full effect."55
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The
Besides, the schedule of disabilities under Section 32 is in no way exclusive. assailed Decision60 and Resolution61 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
Section 20.B.4 of the same POEA Standard Employment Contract clearly No. 94964 are hereby AFFIRMED.
provides that "[t]hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are
disputably presumed as work related." This provision only means that the SO ORDERED.
disability schedule also contemplates injuries not explicitly listed under it.

We therefore sustain the computational findings of the NLRC as affirmed by


the CA, to wit:

Relative to the amount of disability compensation, Section 20.1.4.4 of the


applicable CBA between AMOSUP and Maersk Company (IOM) provides
that the rate of compensation for 100% disability for Ratings is
US$60,000.00, with any differences, including less than 10% disability, to be
pro-rata. Section 20.1.5 of said CBA further provides that "xxx any seafarer
assessed at less than 50% disability under the Contract but certified as
permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the company
doctor, shall also be entitled to 100% compensation" (Pages 48-49,
Records). It is clear from the latter provision that for a seafarer to be
entitled under said CBA to 100% compensation for less than 50%
disability, it must be the company doctor who should certify that the
seafarer is permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity.

In the case at bar, Complainant had corneal scar, a cystic macula and
30% loss of vision on his left eye. Thus, applying Section 30 56 of the
standard contract, We hold that Complainant's impediment grade is

Page 5 of 5

You might also like