The Case
Petitioner Christopher C. Calera assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 159963 entitled "
Hoegh Fleet Services, Inc. v. Christopher C. Calera:"
1) |
Decision[1] dated July 12, 2019 holding that petitioner's illness was neither accident nor work-related; and |
|
|
2) |
Resolution[2] dated November 22, 2019 denying reconsideration. |
Antecedents
In his Notice to Arbitrate
[3]
dated July 24, 2017, petitioner submitted to the Regional Conciliation
and Mediation Board (RCMB) - National Capital Region his claim for total
and permanent disability benefits and damages for the lower back injury
he sustained at Cartagena, Colombia. He essentially alleged:
[4]
Respondent Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc. initially hired him as ordinary seaman
[5]
in 2014. In September 2016, respondent directed him anew to undergo
Pre-Employment Medical Examination at SuperCare Medical Services, Inc.
for his upcoming December 2016 deployment. By Medical Certificate for
Service at Sea
[6] dated November 3, 2016, he was declared fit for sea duties.
On November 14, 2016, respondent officially engaged him as ordinary
seaman on behalf of its foreign principal, Hoegh LNG Colombia SAS. His
employment was covered by a Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) approved contract and PHIL Model LNG 2016
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
On December 5, 2016, he left the country for Cartagena, Colombia where he would board
Hoegh Grace. Upon his arrival, respondent billeted him at the Holiday Inn Hotel while awaiting embarkation on December 7, 2016.
Unfortunately, on the day of his embarkation, he slipped while taking a
shower at Holiday Inn and fell on his buttocks. He felt excruciating
pain and recurring numbness in his lower back and extremity. The
incident, however, did not hinder him from boarding the vessel. Upon
embarkation, he reported the accident to the Bosun (ship's officer) and
requested for pain reliever. The latter relayed the incident to the
chief mate. Instead of compassionately acting on his request, he was
ordered to immediately go to work. He was made to carry heavy baggage
and cans of grease the whole day.
Due to the strenuous work on the first day and lack of medical
attention, his back pain worsened and he had difficulty getting out of
bed the next day. Thus, he was sent to a hospital in Cartagena, Colombia
where he was diagnosed with
mechanical lumbago by the
company-designated physician Dr. Marlon de Avila (Dr. Avila). He was
given medication and ordered to rest for five (5) days.
Because of his persistent back pain, he returned for a follow up
check-up on December 13, 2016 where he was diagnosed, this time, with
perianal abscess. He was also advised to continue his medication for his
mechanical lumbago.
In his Medical Report dated December 20, 2016,
[7] Dr. Avila prescribed antibiotic and advised him to take a rest for another seven (7) days,
viz.:
Patient who consults because two weeks ago[,] he suffered a
fall from his own weight while bathing, later[,] he [h]as generated
lumbar pain and today[,] refers appearance of anal lesion and fever for
24 hours.
During the medical examination, the doctor observes perianal abscess without signs of a systemic inflammatory response.
It was applied [sic] intravenous medication to relieve the pain and recommendations and warning signs are indicated.
It is important to take Antibiotic treatment, anti-inflammatory analgesics, baths with warm water and rest for 7 days.
Best regards,
Dr. Marlon de Avila
Medicos y Auditores
But his condition did not improve. Consequently, he was medically
repatriated on January 2, 2017 and arrived in the Philippines on January
4, 2017. He immediately reported to respondent's office the following
day and was referred to Shiphealth, Inc. (Shiphealth) for evaluation.
Shiphealth advised him to undergo medication and physical therapy which
commenced on January 17, 2017. On April 15, 2017, respondent
discontinued petitioner's physical therapy despite lack of any
improvement on his condition.
Later, he was
verbally assessed to be fit for work. Respondent
tried to force him to sign a certificate of fitness to work but he
refused. He patiently waited for a copy of the medical assessment
instead, but to no avail. Thereafter, he repeatedly demanded for
respondent to issue any medical assessment but the latter did not.
As he could no longer tolerate his back pain, he consulted orthopedic
specialist Dr. Renato P. Runas (Dr. Runas) on June 6, 2017. He was
advised to undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), the result of which
showed
disk desiccation and mild posterior disk bulge L4-L5[8] so he underwent further monitoring under Dr. Runas' care. In his Medical Evaluation Report
[9]
dated June 21, 2017, Dr. Runas assessed him to be suffering from total
and permanent disability and declared him unfit for sea duty in whatever
capacity, thus:
MEDICAL EVALUATION REPORT
June 21, 2017
This is the case of Seaman Christopher C. Calera, 32 years old,
male, single, Filipino, and presently residing at 2509 Magsaysay, Tubao,
La Union with a chief complaint of low back pain.
Present condition apparently started on December 7, 2016 after he
accidentally slipped in the shower room and landed on his buttocks. He
experienced lower back pain with numbness. He was able to stand after
more than a minute. While walking, he felt pain associated with numbness
at the right lower back and lower extremity. He reported the incident
to the Bosun who relayed it to the Chief Mate but no immediate response
was given. He later joined fellow seafarers in loading baggage and heavy
cans of grease. The pain intensity increased while carrying heavy
object. On the next day, (December 8, 2016) he was unable to get up
because of severe low back pain. He was advised to rest by the CM and
given medications. He was brought to a hospital in Cartagena, Colombia
for evaluation. He was diagnosed [with] mechanical lumbago and
given pain reliever which afforded mil[d] relief. He was also declared
unfit to work for 5 days and given pain medications. He went back for
follow-up on December 13, 2016 since no improvement was noted. X-ray of
the lumbosacral spine was done. Result showed muscle spasm. He was given
steroid injection, oral pain medications and topical analgesic. He
consulted again on December 20, 2016 still complaining of low back pain.
On examination, he was noted to be febrile. Perianal abscess was noted.
He was given antibiotics and oral medications for pain. He was advised
to rest for 7 days. After 1 week, he returned to work and given light
duties. He was eventually repatriated for further evaluation and
management on January 2, 2017.
Upon arrival, he was referred at Shiphealth Clinic for evaluation,
Xray, MRI of the lumbosacral spine, EMG-NCV[,] was done but results
were unknown to patient. He was given oral medications and referred to
rehabilitation department. He underwent physical therapy for 4 sessions.
The treatment was later terminated by the company.
At present, Seaman Calera is still complaining of nagging pain on the
lower back. Pain is very intense in the morning and with varying degrees
of intensity during the whole day. Lower extremity numbness is
experienced during prolonged standing and walking and relieved by rest.
On physical examination, no gross abnormality was noted. He was
ambulatory with no limp. Tenderness was elicited at the lumbar area.
Muscle spasm was noted at the lower paraspinal muscles. Trunk flexion
was limited due to pain from the mid to lower back. SLR is equivocal due
to hamstring muscles and Achilles tendon tightness. Low back pain is
aggravated by Valsalva's maneuver (coughing and straining).
Seaman Calera is incapacitated due to persistent moderate lower back
pain. The clinical manifestation is suggestive of a lumbar disc disease
and confirmed by MRT by the presence of a posterior disc bulge. It is
worthy to mention that Seaman Calera is asymptomatic and very active
prior to the accident. The fall resulted in the development of a disc
bulge which is causing the chronic low back pain. Due to this
impediment, he is no longer capable of performing the tasks of an
Ordinary Seaman. He cannot carry and lift heavy objects because of the
high probability of progression of the condition. His capacity to work
is greatly affected and reduced and is not physically fit to return to
his previous job. He is unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity with a
permanent disability since he can no longer perform his work which he is
previously engaged in.
Renato P. Runas, MD
License Nr: 53567
PTR Nr: 6689600[10]
By letter
[11] dated July 5,
2017, he requested a conference with respondent to discuss his
entitlement to disability benefits under the CBA in view of his
untreated medical condition and failure to land gainful employment in an
ocean-going vessel for more than 120 days from repatriation.
Respondent, however, did not bother taking action, prompting him to file
the Notice to Arbitrate before the RCMB. The parties initially agreed
to conduct grievance proceedings pursuant to the CBA with Associated
Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) and
Hoegh LNG Maritime. Consequently, the RCMB held in abeyance the
selection of voluntary arbitrators.
During the grievance proceedings, he willingly agreed to submit his case
for disability assessment to a third doctor. He even provided
respondent with a set of parameters acceptable to him,
viz.:
September 22, 2017
ATTY. KRISTINE GAY M. CENGCA
Legal Counsel
HOEGH FLEET SERVICES PHILS., INC.
4677 Hoegh Building, Arellano St., Palanan,
Arellano Ave, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines
Dear Atty. Cengca,
x x x for the purpose of referring the assessment to a third doctor, the
following parameters are submitted in view of the conduct of the third
doctor assessment, to wit:
- That the referral shall not be construed as a waiver of any right or
presumption of law already acquired by the complainant under
established principles of law and labor code concept of disability;
- That the conduct of assessment of fitness or unfitness must be
done in accordance with the DOH Revised Guidelines for Conducting
Medical Fitness Examination for Seafarers;
- That the failure by the third doctor to strictly comply with
the DOH Revised Guidelines shall render the third doctor assessment NULL
and VOID;
- That the referral to a third doctor must be made within 15 days from the time of agreement to submit to a third doctor; and
- The seafarer suggests Dr. Jason Paul Santiago of the Philippine
Orthopedic Center to be the one to conduct the assessment and that the
expenses shall be solely borne by the Company.
We would highly appreciate your response to this letter within five (5)
days from receipt thereof so that we could proceed with the third doctor
assessment under the above-mentioned parameters. Otherwise, the
undersigned will regard the same as failure of the parties to agree on
the third doctor assessment.
Very truly yours,
Signed
Atty. Arvin C. Dolendo
Legal Counsel[12]
Respondent disagreed to the above proposal and the referral to third
doctor did not proceed. The grievance proceedings were terminated for
the parties' failure to amicably settle. Meanwhile, the proceedings
before the RCMB resumed.
During the RCMB proceedings, he demonstrated before the Panel of
Arbitrators the difficulty of moving his body due to lower back pain
which required him to use back brace support. He, too, manifested that
he had been undergoing physical therapy since June 30, 2017. In her
Medical Report dated April 2, 2018, Physical Therapist Maricar E.
Basario (PT Basario) noted petitioner's limited trunk movement and lower
back pain:
Name: Christopher C. Calera |
Date: April 2, 2018 |
Address: Tubao, La Union |
|
Age: 33 |
|
Diagnosis: Lumbar Spondylosis, Spinal Stenosis |
|
Frequency/Number of Treatment Sessions: 10 sessions |
|
Treatment Dates: |
|
|
2017: June 30; July 25; Aug. 21; Sep 20; Oct 17 |
|
|
2018: Jan 5; Jan 12; Feb 10; Feb 16; March 20
|
|
x x x x
II. PREVIOUS COMPLAINT
Limitation of trunk movement
Crawling sensation, both LE
Dull aching pain, PS 7/10 to lower back
III. GOALS ACHIEVED
Eliminate crawling sensation to both LE
Decreased dull aching pain to lower back PS 4/10
IV. PRESENT PROBLEM LIST
Limitation of trunk movement esp during morning
Lower back pain increases with lifting
Low back pain during squats
Signed
Maricar E. Basario, PTRP
Physical Therapist[13]
PT Basario noted no improvement on petitioner's condition in her July 11, 2018 Medical Report:
IV. PRESENT PROBLEM LIST
Limitation of trunk movement especially during morning still noted
Lower back pain increases with lifting
Low back pain during squats
Residual dull aching pain at lower back at PS 4/10
Signed
Maricar E. Basario, PTRP
Physical Therapist[14]
He never landed any gainful employment ever since he got repatriated.
Respondent,
[15] on the other hand, countered that petitioner was engaged as an ordinary seaman for five (5) months on board
Hoegh Grace.
He boarded the vessel on December 12, 2016. He was referred to a
medical doctor in Cartagena, Colombia where he was diagnosed with
mechanical lumbago and
perianal abscess
and was later on declared unfit for sea duty and repatriated. On
January 5, 2017, he was referred to Shiphealth for medical care.
Under Initial Medical Report dated January 9, 2017, petitioner was initially diagnosed with
t/c Lumbar Muscle Strain: r/o spine fracture.
[16] Petitioner underwent several medical procedures based on the following findings and recommendations:
Medical Report No. |
Working Diagnosis |
Recommendations |
Medical Report No. 2 dated January 18, 2017 |
Lumbar Muscle Strain |
- For 6 sessions of physical therapy - 1st set
- Follow up consult with Orthopedic Spine Surgery service on January 30, 2017
- Follow up consult with Physiatry service after physiotherapy
- Medication as prescribed[17] |
Medical Report No. 3 dated January 31, 2017 |
- t/c L4 Radiculopathy, right probably secondary to Herniated Nucleus Pulposus
- s/p 6 sessions of physical therapy (1st set) |
- For Plain MRI of Lumbosacral spine, at a cost of Php11,500.00 (FOR APPROVAL)
- For 6 sessions of physical therapy - 2nd set
- Follow up consult with Orthopedic Spine Surgery service on February 13, 2017 or earlier once with results
- Follow up consult with Physiatry service after physiotherapy
- Medications as prescribed[18]
|
Medical Report No. 4 dated February 14, 2017 |
- t/c Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Neuropathy, right
- s/p 2 sets of physical
therapy (6 sessions each)
|
- Estimated length of further treatment is 2-3 months.
- Conservative medical management with medications and rehabilitative therapy (2-4 sets of PT)[19] |
Medical Report No. 5 dated March 7, 2017 |
- t/c Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Neuropathy, right
- s/p 3 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)
|
- As needed intake of analgesics
- Follow up consult with Orthopedic
Spine Surgery service on March 10, 2017
- Medications as prescribed[20]
|
Medical Report No. 6 dated March 16, 2017 |
- Sciatica Piriformis Syndrome vs Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Neuropathy, right
- s/p 3 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each) |
- As needed intake of analgesics
- Relative rest
- Follow up consult with Orthopedic Spine Surgery service on March 20, 2017
- Medications as prescribed[21] |
Medical Report No. 7 dated March 29, 2017 |
- Piriformis Syndrome, right with Sciatica
- s/p 3 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each) |
- Medications prescribed: Keltican OD and Pregabalin 75 mg PRN
- For 6 sessions of physical therapy - 4th set
- Follow up consult with Orthopedic Spine Surgery service on April 12, 2017
- Medications as prescribed[22] |
On April 10, 2017, Shiphealth issued its interim
[23] grade 8 disability rating,
viz.:
INTERIM DISABILITY GRADING
Mr. Calera is a 33-year-old male from La Union.
Working Diagnosis:
- Piriformis Syndrome, right with Sciatica
- s/p 3 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)
- s/p 4 out of 6 sessions of physical therapy - 4th set
IF NEEDED, the disability grading that closely corresponds to patient's
present functional capacity, in accordance to the 2010 POEA Standard
Employment Contract, Section 32 (Schedule of Disability or Impediment
for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Disease or
Illness Contracted), Chest-Trunk-Spine, moderate rigidity or two thirds
(2/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk, is a Grade 8 (EIGHT) disability.
Prepared by:
Shiphealth Medical Team/JRA[24]
Medical Report No. |
Working Diagnosis |
Recommendations |
Medical Report No. 9 dated April 19, 2017 |
- Piriformis Syndrome, right with sciatica, improved
- s/p 4 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)[25] |
N/A |
Medical Report No. 10 dated May 16, 2017 |
- Piriformis Syndrome, right with sciatica, improved
- s/p 4 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)[26] |
N/A |
Medical Report No. 11 dated May 31, 2017 |
- Piriformis Syndrome, right with sciatica, improved
- s/p 4 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)[27] |
N/A |
In its Final Medical Report
[28] dated June 13, 2017, Shiphealth found petitioner to be suffering from
piriformis syndrome, right with sciatica but recommended four (4) sets of physical therapy (six [6] sessions each), thus:
FINAL MEDICAL REPORT
Mr. Calera is a 33-year-old male from La Union who was referred for the management of perianal abscess and low back pain.
Present illness started on December 6, 2016 when the patient presented
to the vessel's medical officer with complaints of right-sided low back
pain of VAS 6-7/10 accompanied by paresthesia on the right lower
extremity after prolonged sitting. Pain medication was given. On
December 8, 13 and 19, 2016, patient was referred to a shore side
facility in [Colombia]. Assessment was Mechanical Lumbago.
Intravenous medications were given, with temporary relief of symptoms.
During the course of treatment, patient complained of minimal perianal
pain after defecation. Possible perianal abscess was considered. Home
country referral was recommended for further evaluation and management.
Patient was repatriated on January 4, 2017 and was then referred to our
facility.
Past Medical History: s/p Proctosigmoidoscopy with
Hemorrhoidectomy for Mixed Hemorrhoids (September 30, 2015); s/p repeat
proctosigmoidoscopy with Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy for Anal
Fissure (January 27, 2016); s/p Proctosigmoidoscopy with Lateral
Internal Sphincterotomy for Anal Fissure (June 22, 2016)
Pertinent Findings on Initial Physical Examination
General |
conscious, coherent, ambulatory, not in cardiorespiratory distress |
Back and Spine |
No gross bone deformity and intact spine
curvature; (+) tenderness on paralumbar areas; No pain on trunk flexion;
(-) straight leg raising and FABERE tests; |
Extremities |
(+) minimal tenderness on end-range of extension of right shoulder; |
|
Pulses full and equal, no cyanosis, no masses or lesions, MMT 5/5 on all extremities |
Rectal |
No perianal abscess, hemorrhoids or anal fissures; |
|
No blood on examining finger |
Clinical Course
For perianal abscess:
Patient was examined by General Surgery service on January 5, 2017. At
that time, patient denied having perianal pain, bloody or purulent
discharge and irregularities in bowel movement. On examination, no
perianal abscess, hemorrhoids or anal fissures were identified. No
treatment intervention was indicated for the referred condition at that
time. Patient was then discharged by General Surgery service for the
condition referred.
For low back pain:
On January 6 and 30, 2017, patient was evaluated by Orthopedic Spine
Surgery service. At that time, he reported intermittent low back pain of
VAS 3/10 with paresthesia on the right lower extremity. Initial
consideration was Lumbar Muscle Strain and rule-out Spine Fracture.
Commencement of rehabilitation therapy was recommended.
X-ray of the cervical spine showed the cervical bodies, pedicles,
posterior elements and intervertebral disc spaces are intact. X-ray of
the thoracolumbar spine showed normal findings. Assessment was possible
Radiculopathy, right probably secondary to Herniated Nucleus Pulposus.
To facilitate return of full function, continued physical therapy was
recommended.
After completion of 6 sessions of physical therapy (2nd set),
Mr. Calera was then re-evaluated by Orthopedic Spine Surgery. He
claimed occasional low back pain of VAS 2110 accompanied by less
paresthesia on the right lower extremity. EMG-NCV findings were within
normal limits. Re-assessment was Piriformis Syndrome, right with
Sciatica. Continuation of physical therapy was advised to alleviate pain
and to improve range of motion. As needed pain medications were
continued.
On re-evaluation by Orthopedic Spine Surgery service on March 24, 2017 after completion of 3rd
set of physical therapy, patient claimed occasional low back pain and
paresthesia on the right lower extremity. Medications were revised.
Another 6 sessions of physical therapy [were] recommended.
Mr. Calera returned for follow up on April 17, 2017 after completion of 4th
physiotherapy set. Post rehabilitation, patient claimed of intermittent
numbness or paresthesia on the right lower leg. He claimed resolution
of low back pain. He had no other subjective complaints. Objectively,
physical exam showed no swelling and no tenderness with improved lumbar
range of motion. There was noted MMT 5/5 on all extremities. Final
diagnosis was Piriformis Syndrome, right with Sciatica, improving.
Orthopedic Spine service opined that no further active intervention was
indicated for the patient at that time except for continued
self-directed home exercises.
After discussion of case with concerned parties, transfer of care patient's physician of choice was requested on June 13, 2017.
Final Diagnosis:
- Piriformis Syndrome, right with Sciatica, improving
- s/p 4 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)
Prepared by:
Shiphealth Medical Team/JRA[29]
Petitioner was declared fit to return to work but refused to sign his
certificate of fitness to work. On July 24, 2018, he filed a Notice to
Arbitrate before the RCMB. It countered with a Motion to Dismiss
[30] to give way to the grievance proceedings before the AMOSUP as provided in the CBA.
During the grievance proceedings, the parties explored the possibility
of referring petitioner's medical condition to a third doctor. They did
not, however, arrive at mutually acceptable parameters in the selection
of the third doctor. Thus, the proceedings before the RCMB resumed.
Respondents prayed for the denial of petitioner's claim as he was
claiming compensation for an illness - lumbar disc disease, different
from that for which he was repatriated -
perianal abscess.
The Ruling of the Panel of Arbitrators
By Decision
[31] dated November 19, 2018, the Panel of Arbitrators
[32] ruled in petitioner's favor,
viz.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
respondent to pay the complainant the amount of US$60,000.00 as total
and permanent disability compensation, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as
attorney's (sic) fees, or in Philippine currency at the rate of
exchange prevailing on the date of payment.
SO ORDERED.
The Panel of Arbitrators held that the POEA approved contract between
petitioner and respondent was already effective when the former slipped
in the bathroom of the Holiday Inn. They noted that petitioner had
principally complained of back pain from the very beginning. It was only
the cause of such pain that the doctors differed. It was, therefore,
error for respondent to conclude that petitioner was claiming payment
for an illness distinct from that for which he was repatriated. Against
the company-designated physicians' findings, they gave greater weight to
petitioner's physician of choice who noted that petitioner was
incapacitated due to persistent lower back pain suggestive of a lumbar
disc disease.
The Panel of Arbitrators, however, denied petitioner's claim for disability benefits under the CBA on the following grounds;
first, slipping on a wet bathroom floor could not be said to have been caused by accident as it cannot be totally unexpected;
second, petitioner was neither an officer to be entitled to the US$110,000.00 nor a cadet to be entitled to US$90,000.00; and
third,
petitioner did not even attach a copy of the alleged Model Agreement
for Non-Norwegian Vessels for Filipino Officers and Ratings to prove his
entitlement thereto.
[33]
Petitioner's claim for sickness allowance, too, was denied for lack of
basis. The Panel of Arbitrators, nonetheless, deemed sufficient
respondent's payment of P80,148.75 to petitioner as sickness allowance.
Lastly, the Panel of Arbitrators denied petitioner's prayer for moral
and exemplary damages as respondent did not act in a wanton or
fraudulent manner in refusing petitioner's claims.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration got denied by Resolution
[34] dated February 6, 2019.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
via a petition for review
[35]
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It argued that there was
absolutely no basis for the panel of arbitrator's award of disability
compensation benefits to petitioner.
For one, petitioner was claiming payment for an illness different from that for which he was repatriated -
perianal abscess and not lumbar disc disease. More, the illness was not work-related and pre-existing.
For another, spinal problems do not automatically entitle a
seafarer to disability benefits. More so in this case where petitioner's
condition was agerelated.
It prayed for the deletion of the award of attorney's fees for want of
basis. It adopted and reproduced the above allegations in support of its
prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and or preliminary
injunction order.
In his Comment,
[36] petitioner
countered that his entitlement to total and permanent disability
benefits was by operation of law since there was no final and definitive
assessment of fitness to work. Petitioner was repatriated on January 2,
2017, and more than 240 days had passed since then but no medical
assessment with disability grading was ever issued. More, the lack of
redeployment proved his unfitness to work and his total and permanent
disability.
Contrary to respondent's claim, he was repatriated due to
perianal abscess and
mechanical lumbago.
At any rate, he pointed out that he was not suffering from any illness
or injury prior to embarkation, which proved that his back pain was
accident and work-related. It was clear from the alleged final medical
report that he was far from recovery. He insisted on his entitlement to
attorney's fees.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Through its assailed Decision
[37] dated July 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed,
viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is GRANTED.
The Decision dated November 19,2018 and Resolution dated February 6,
2019 of the Philippine Association of Voluntary Arbitrators (PAVA),
Regional Conciliation and Mediation Board, National Capital Region in
MVA-034-NCR-044-02-02-2018 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
It held that petitioner's condition was neither accidental nor workrelated.
First,
to espouse that the accident was the direct and proximate cause of
petitioner's disability effectively ruled out the body's wear and tear
due to prolonged strenuous work.
Second, petitioner failed to
establish his condition's work-relatedness. At the time of the accident,
he was inside his hotel room and was neither exposed to the perils of
the sea nor on board
Hoegh Grace. His injury, therefore, had nothing to do with his seafarer duties.
Lastly,
the CBA only contemplated the seafarer going to or from his or her
vessel to be entitled to the benefits thereto. The failure of the
companydesignated physicians to clear petitioner for sea duty was
immaterial since the direct and proximate cause of the injury was not
work-related.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied per Resolution
[38] dated November 22, 2019.
The Present Petition
Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief and prays that the assailed
dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed, and the Panel of
Arbitrators' decision, reinstated.
He asserts that his illness is work-related and, thus, faults the Court
of Appeals for holding that there were no risk factors associated with
traveling when the incident happened while he was taking a bath; and
that the incident had nothing to do with both the nature of his
employment and the possible risk factor of being in transit.
Meanwhile, the seafarer's contract commenced from actual departure from
the Philippine ai1 ort, the point of hire. Thus, the injury happened
during the commencement of the employment contract, in a place where he
should reasonably be, and engaged in something incidental thereto -
preparing for embarkation.
In its Comment,
[39] respondent
supports the dispositions of the Court of Appeals. It counters that
petitioner's illness is not work-related and the accident occurred even
before he could embark on the vessel. Thus, he was never exposed to the
perils of the sea and the injury had nothing to do with the nature of
his seafarer duties. At any rate, the company-designated physicians
declared him fit to work. Petitioner's basis for his claim for
disability benefits, lumbar disc disease, is completely different from
that for which he was repatriated -
perianal abscess.
Threshold Issue
Is petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits?
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the issues presented in this case
are factual in nature. Ordinarily, this Court is not a trier of facts
and does not embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced during trial.
This rule, however, allows for exceptions as when the findings of fact
of the quasijudicial agencies concerned are conflicting or
contradictory with those of the Court of Appeals, as here. When there is
a variance in the factual findings, it is incumbent upon the Court to
re-examine the facts once again.
[40]
We proceed to the merits.
Petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. |
|
The seafarers' employment is governed by the contracts they signed at
the time of engagement. As long as the stipulations therein are not
contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the
force of law between the parties. Nonetheless, while the seafarer and
his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and
Regulations require that the POEA-Standard Employment Contract
(POEA-SEC) be integrated in every seafarer's contract.
[41]
Here, petitioner's employment is governed by the POEA-SEC executed on
November 14, 2016, the CBA between the AMOSUP and Hoegh LNG Maritime
Management PTE LTD., and the CBA for Filipino Officers between the
Norwegian Shipowners' Association and the AMOSUP, the Norwegian Maritime
Officers' Association, and the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers.
a. The Holiday Inn incident was not a compensable accident.
Section 1 (4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC mandates the principal employer to
take precautions to prevent accident and provide safe working
environment for the seafarer,
viz.:
4. To provide a seaworthy ship for the seafarer and take all
reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew
including provision of safety equipment, fire prevention, safe and
proper navigation of the ship and such other precautions necessary to
avoid accident, injury or sickness to the seafarer.[42]
Black's Law Dictionary defines "accident" as an unintended and
unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the
usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated; an
unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake,
negligence, neglect, or misconduct. The Philippine Law Dictionary, on
the other, defines "accident" as that which happens by chance or
fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected,
unusual, and unforeseen. In its commonly accepted meaning, accident has
been defined as a fortuitous circumstance, event, or happening, an event
happeni.ng without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly
through human agency, an event which under the circumstances, is unusual
and unexpected by the person to whom it happens. It may denote a
calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate
happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked
for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence, that
causes injury, loss, suffering, or death; some untoward occurrence
aside from the usual course of events.
[43]
On December 5, 2016, petitioner left for Cartagena, Colombia where he would board
Hoegh Grace.
Since he arrived earlier than his embarkation, respondent checked him
in at the Holiday Inn. On December 7, 2016, the day of his embarkation,
he slipped and fell on his buttocks while taking a shower, causing him
excruciating lower back pain.
To our mind, slipping in the bathroom floor is not an unforeseen
injurious occurrence that could not be reasonably anticipated. For once a
person enters the bathroom, he knows for a fact that the floor could
get slippery and cause him bodily injuries. Too, there is no showing of
any measures petitioner adopted to at least lessen or avoid the injury
caused by a slippery floor. We cannot therefore consider the incident as
an "accident" within the contemplation of the POEA-SEC contract.
b. Petitioner's injury was work-aggravated
The Court nevertheless finds that petitioner suffered compensable injury
under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC. For an injury or disability to be
compensable under this provision, two (2) elements must concur: (1) the
injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury
or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's
employment contract.
[44] For a
disability claim to prosper, a seafarer only needs to show that his
work and contracted illness have a reasonable linkage that must lead a
rational mind to conclude that his occupation may have contributed or
aggravated the disease.
[45]
For the first element, the POEA-SEC defines work-related injury as one
"arising out of and in the course of employment." Jurisprudence further
teaches that compensable illness or injury cannot be confined to the
strict interpretation. of the POEA-SEC as pre-existing conditions may be
compensable if
aggravated by the seafarer's work.
[46]
Here, it is undisputed that before actual boarding of the vessel on
December 7, 2016, petitioner slipped in the bathroom of Holiday Inn and
suffered injury. To reiterate, this, by itself, is not compensable. But
when petitioner boarded his assigned vessel, he immediately reported the
incident to the Bosun, as well as the excruciating pain and recurring
numbness he had been experiencing on his lower back and extremity after
said incident. Apparently, he was already suffering from
mechanical lumbago and
perianal abscess
at this point. He requested for pain reliever but was not given any.
And instead of showing compassion, his superiors ordered him to
immediately get to work, making him carry heavy baggage and cans of
grease.
These circumstances show that the injury petitioner suffered at Holiday Inn which would have otherwise been not compensable was
aggravated
by his work on board the vessel. Indeed, due to the strenuous work on
the first day and lack of medical attention, petitioner's condition
worsened, and he even had difficulty getting out of bed the next day. In
view of the factual backdrop, we rule that petitioner's injury was
work-related or more specifically,
work-aggravated.
In
Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Quiambao,
[47]
therein respondent seafarer Quiambao figured in an accident while
carrying heavy food provisions which caused him excruciating pain in his
upper back. The labor arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals uniformly
found petitioner to be suffering from osteoarthritis. Quiambao was able
to prove the conditions necessary for osteoarthritis to be considered
as having arisen in the course of his employment either by direct
causation or aggravation due to the nature of his work. According to the
Court, it was also plain from his duties and responsibilities that his
work involved carrying heavy loads and the performance of other
strenuous activities such that it can reasonably be concluded that his
work caused or at least aggravated his illness.
It is of no moment that petitioner suffered the injury at Holiday Inn.
For it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole
and only reason for the illness or injury suffered by the seafarer.
[48] In
Heirs of Licuanan v. Singa Ship Management, Inc.,
the Court categorically held that it is not required that the
employment be the sole factor in the growth, development, or
acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits
incident thereto. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even
in a small measure, to the development of the disease.
[49]
As for the second requisite of a compensable injury, suffice it to state
that petitioner's condition was aggravated by his work during the term
of his employment contract.
So must it be.
Petitioner's disability is total and permanent
Having established the compensability of petitioner's injury, we proceed
to determine his disability rating and respondent's corresponding
liability.
Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the company-designated physician is primarily
vested with responsibility to determine the seafarer's disability
grading or fitness to work.
[50] In
Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr.,
[51] the Court set forth the following guidelines in determining whether a medical report was timely issued,
viz.:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final
medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period
of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment
within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the
seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment
within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g.
seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be
extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the
company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the
period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his
assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's
disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
Verily, two (2) requisites must concur: 1) an assessment must be issued
within the 120/240-day window, and 2) the assessment must be final and
definitive.
[52]
a. The assessment was timely issued.
Here, petitioner was medically repatriated on January 2, 2017 and
arrived in the Philippines on January 4, 2017. After series of medical
procedure, the company-designated physicians issued an interim medical
report which assessed petitioner's condition as a grade 8 disability.
This interim report was issued on April 10, 2017, or 96 days from
repatriation and within the 120-day window prescribed by law. Since
petitioner still required further medical treatment as evidenced by the
several medical reports that followed, the period of diagnosis and
treatment was extended to 240 days. The company-designated physicians
issued the alleged final medical assessment on June 13, 2017, or 160
days from repatriation, and within the 240-day period.
Verily, the medical reports were timely issued by the companydesignated
physicians. As will be discussed, the timeliness of the issuance of the
medical reports is of no moment since the alleged final medical report
was not at all final.
b. |
The company-designated physicians failed to issue a final and definitive assessment of petitioner's condition |
|
A
final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order
to reflect the true extent of the seafarer's sickness or injuries and
his or her capacity to resume work as such. Otherwise, the corresponding
disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the
prolonged effects of the injuries suffered.
[53] Before the disability ratings from the companydesignated physician may be considered,
they should first be properly established and contained in a valid and timely medical report.
Thus, the foremost consideration of the courts should be to determine
whether the company-designated physician's medical assessment or report
was
complete and appropriately issued; otherwise, the medical
report shall be set aside, and the disability grading contained therein
cannot be seriously appreciated.
[54]
To be conclusive, the company-designated physicians' medical assessments
or reports must be complete and definite to give the proper disability
benefits to seafarers.
[55] Guided by jurisprudence, the following are the characteristics of a final and complete medical report:
One. It must be
complete. In
Hanseatic Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Ballon,
[56]
the Court treated the undated medical report as incomplete because it
only discussed the treatment of Ballon's myofascial pain dysfunction,
but not his cervical myelopathy in his right C5-C6.
Two. It must be
definite. The definiteness of a medical
report pertains to the company-designated physicians' assessment of the
seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of
120 or 240 days. The company doctor must declare the seaman fit to work
or assess the degree of his permanent disability. Without which, the
characterization of a seafarer's condition as permanent and total will
ensue because the ability to return to one's accustomed work before the
applicable periods elapse cannot be shown.
[57]
Here, the company-designated physicians, Shiphealth, issued the alleged final medical report dated June 13, 2017,
viz.:
FINAL MEDICAL REPORT
Mr. Calera is a 33-year-old male from La Union who was referred for the management of perianal abscess and low back pain.
Present illness started on December 6, 2016 when the patient presented
to the vessel 's medical officer with complaints of right-sided low back
pain of VAS 6-7/10 accompanied by paresthesia on the right lower
extremity after prolonged sitting. Pain medication was given. On
December 8, 13 and 19, 2016, patient was referred to a shore side
facility in Columbia. Assessment was Mechanical Lumbago.
Intravenous medications were given, with temporary relief of symptoms.
During the course of treatment, patient complained of minimal perianal
pain after defecation. Possible perianal abscess was considered. Home
country referral was recommended for further evaluation and management.
Patient was repatriated on January 4, 2017 and was then referred to our
facility.
x x x x
Final Diagnosis:
Piriformis Syndrome, right with Sciatica, improving s/p 4 sets of physical therapy (6 sessions each)
Prepared by:
Shiphealth Medical Team/JRA[58]
As worded, the medical report was far from final. For one, the
company-designated physicians made no mention of any disability rating
nor any declaration as to petitioner's fitness or unfitness for further
sea duty. For another, the alleged finality of the medical report was
negated by the fact that petitioner needed further medical treatment,
i.e.,
he was referred for four (4) sets of physical therapy with six (6)
sessions each. That he was not redeployed after the incident at the
Holiday Inn lends credence to the fact that he still needed further
medical attention and far from healed.
The Court, therefore, finds the June 13, 2017 medical report to have
fallen short of the parameters for a final and definite medical report.
Even if the company-designated physicians were justified in extending
petitioner's medical treatment to more than 120 days, yet, as earlier
stated, the alleged final medical report is far from final.
Sans a valid final and definite assessment from the company-designated
physicians within the 120/240-day period, the law already steps in to
consider, petitioner's disability as total and permanent.
[59] By operation of law, therefore, petitioner is deemed totally and permanently disabled.
In
Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. v. Atraje,
[60]
the Court held that respondent's inability to perform his customary sea
duties, coupled with the company-designated physicians' abdication of
their primary duty to declare his fitness or unfitness to work within
the prescribed period, transformed his disability to permanent and total
by operation of law. There, the company designated physicians,
Shiphealth, clearly breached their duty to provide a definite assessment
of respondent's condition. Despite medication and physical therapy,
respondent was not restored to his pre-injury health status.
In the same vein,
Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines[61]
teaches that the company-designated physician's failure to give a
definitive impediment rating of Carcedo's disability beyond the extended
temporary disability period, after the 120-day period but less than 240
days transformed Carcedo's total and temporary disability into a total
and permanent disability by operation of law.
Monetary Awards
Contrary to petitioner's claim, he is not entitled to USD90,000.00
disability benefits under the CBA. Article 12 thereof provides:
If an officer[,] due to no fault of his own, suffers
an occupational injury as a result of an accident or an occupational
disease, while serving on board or while travelling to or from the
vessel on Company's business or due to marine peril, and as a result[,]
his ability to work is permanently reduced, totally or partially, and
never to be declared fit. The Company shall pay him a disability
compensation which including the amounts stipulated by the POEA's rules
and regulations shall be the maximum USD110.000 for officers and
USD90.000 for cadets.[62] (Emphases added)
As the panel of voluntary arbitrators observed, petitioner is neither an
officer nor cadet, but an ordinary seafarer. Thus, we apply the
POEA-SEC under which petitioner is entitled to USD60,000.00.
[63]
Meanwhile, petitioner's prayer for moral and exemplary damages should be
denied for failure to show that respondent acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner in dealing with
him for medical treatment.
[64]
On the contrary, respondent attended to petitioner's medical needs
after he continued complaining of his injury as shown by the numerous
medical reports.
An award of attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award is
warranted, considering that petitioner was compelled to litigate to
satisfy his claim for disability benefits.
[65]
Lastly, the monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest
per annum from finality of this decision until fully paid.
[66]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is
GRANTED and the Decision dated July 12, 2019 and Resolution dated November 22, 2019,
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Christopher C. Calera is declared
TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED for sea duties. Respondent Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc. is
ORDERED to
PAY petitioner:
1) |
Total and Permanent Disability Benefits of USD60,000.00; and |
2) |
Attorney's Fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. |
The total monetary award shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest
per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), M. Lopez, Rosario, and
J. Lopez,
* JJ., concur.
* Designated as additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Maria Filomena D. Singh,
rollo, pp. 52-64.
[2] Id. at 40-42.
[3] Id. at 259.
[4] Id. at 156-183.
[5] Tasks: (a) Main deck
maintenance; (b) Rigging and unrigging of pilot ladder; (c) Mooring and
unmooring operations; (d) Bridge stand on watch; (e) Chipping and
painting of the vessel; (f) Securing chain and car lashing; and (g)
Performing other deck maintenance work and strenuous duties as
instructed by his superior.
[6] Rollo, p. 184.
[7] Id. at 208.
[8] Id. at 209.
[9] Id. at 210-211.
[10] Id. at 210-211.
[11] Id. at 212-215.
[12] Id. at 218-219.
[13] Id. at 223.
[14] Id. at 224.
[15] Id. at 225-239.
[16] Id. at 245.
[17] Id. at 246.
[18] Id. at 247.
[19] Id. at 248.
[20] Id. at 250.
[21] Id. at 251.
[22] Id. at 252.
[23] Id. at 253.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 254.
[26] Id. at 255.
[27] Id. at 256.
[28] Id. at 257-258.
[29] Id.
[30] Id. at 260-266.
[31] Id. at 145-155.
[32] Hector L. Hofileña, Levy Edwin C. Ang, and Mariano M. Umali.
[33] Rollo. pp. 145-154.
[34] Id. at 128-129.
[35] Id. at 97-122.
[36] Id. at 73-96.
[37] Id. at 52-64.
[38] Id. at 40-42.
[39] Id. at 357-368.
[40] See
General Milling Corp. v. Viajar, 702 Phil. 53, 540 (2013).
[41] See
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Legal Heirs of Repiso, 780 Phil. 645, 666 (2016).
[42] Amended Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers
On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, October
26, 2010.
[43] See
NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. Illescas, 646 Phil. 244, 260 (2010).
[44] See
Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd., and Fausto R. Preysler, Jr., v. Franklin J. Villaflor, G.R. No. 225425, January 29, 2020.
[45] See
Grieg Philippines, Inc. v. Gonzales, 814 Phil. 965, 966 (2017).
[46] Supra note 44.
[47] 763 Phil. 411, 414 (2015).
[48] Supra note 44.
[49] See
Heirs of Licuanan v. Singa Ship Management, Inc., G.R. Nos. 238261 & 238567, June 26, 2019.
[50] See
Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. v. Atraje, 836 Phil. 1061, 1077 (2018).
[51] 765 Phil. 341, 362-363 (2015).
[52] See
Chan v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. G. R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020.
[53] See
Onent Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, 832 Phil. 380, 400 (2018).
[54] See
Olidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234-251 (2015).
[55] Supra note 53 at 396.
[56] 769 Phil. 567, 587 (2015).
[57] Belchem Phils., Inc. v. Zafra, Jr., 759 Phil. 514, 527 (2015).
[58] Rollo, pp. 257-258.
[59] See
Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018.
[60] G.R. No. 229192, July 23, 2018.
[61] Supra note 48.
[62] Rollo, p. 194.
[63] See
Cere v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc., 830 Phil. 695, 702 (2018).
[64] See
Chan v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp, G.R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020.
[65] See
Balbarino v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 201580, September 21, 2020.
[66] See
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).