G.R. No. 199932 ; July 3, 2013
CAMILO A. ESGUERRA, Petitioner, vs. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES, INC., BELSHIPS MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD., and/or FERNANDO T. LISING, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Camilo A. Esguerra was hired by respondent United Philippines Lines, Inc. (UPLI) for its principal, Belships Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd., to work as a fitter on board M/V Jaco Triumph. His POEA-approved employment contract contained a clause incorporating the “current PSU/ITF TCC Agreement.” On August 21, 2008, while working, a manhole cover fell and hit the petitioner on the head, causing injuries. He was medically repatriated on September 11, 2008. UPLI’s accredited physicians initially assessed his disability as Grade 11 (slight rigidity) under the POEA-SEC, later raising it to Grade 8 (moderate rigidity). The petitioner, alleging his condition deteriorated and rendered him permanently unfit for duty, filed a complaint claiming permanent disability benefits and sickness allowance under the Philippine Seafarer’s Union/International Transport Workers Federation Total Crew Cost (PSU/ITF TCC) Agreement, specifically citing Sections 22 and 24 for a maximum compensation of US$142,560.00. He supported his claim with an assessment from his independent physician, Dr. Raul Sabado, who diagnosed a Grade 1 disability (Compression fracture vertebrae) and declared him permanently unfit. The Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in the petitioner’s favor, awarding benefits based on the ITF “TCC” Collective Agreement. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed in part, finding insufficient proof of the specific CBA provisions cited by the petitioner and instead awarded disability benefits pursuant to the POEA-SEC.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding disability benefits to the petitioner under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) instead of under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) as adjudged by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The award of permanent total disability benefits to the petitioner was properly based on the POEA-SEC and not on the CBA.
The Court held that while the petitioner’s employment contract stated that the “current PSU/ITF TCC Agreement” was incorporated, the evidence he presented was insufficient to prove the specific provisions he relied upon. The document he attached to his position paper was a CBA between PSU-ALU-TUCP-ITF and Belships, which did not contain the Sections 22 and 24 he cited for his claim. The attached CBA provisions pertained to disability benefits for officers, not for ratings like the petitioner. Furthermore, the alleged ITF Uniform “TCC” Collective Agreement pages he submitted were unauthenticated, undated, and uncertified copies, failing to meet the requisite evidentiary standard. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging the existence and terms of a CBA, which the petitioner failed to discharge. Consequently, in the absence of competent proof of the applicable CBA provisions, the governing contract is the POEA-SEC. The Court also sustained the CA’s deletion of the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, as the respondents’ actions in contesting the claim, based on their physicians’ assessments, did not constitute evident bad faith or malice. However, the Court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees under Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code, as the case is an action for indemnity under employer’s liability laws.