GR 154798; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154798 October 20, 2005
Crystal Shipping, Inc., and/or A/S Stein Line Bergen, Petitioners, vs. Deo P. Natividad, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Deo P. Natividad was employed as Chief Mate by petitioners. During his contract, he was repatriated due to illness and diagnosed with papillary carcinoma. He underwent a total thyroidectomy and subsequent treatments. The company-designated physicians assessed his disability as a Grade 9 impediment. Petitioners paid corresponding benefits and offered US$13,060, which respondent rejected, claiming entitlement to US$60,000 for total permanent disability (Grade 1), as opined by his personal doctor.
The Labor Arbiter ruled for respondent, awarding US$60,000. The NLRC initially reversed this, holding the company doctors’ findings binding under the POEA contract, but upon reconsideration, affirmed the disability award. Petitioners then filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, citing pressure of work. The CA denied the motion and subsequent reconsideration, leading to this petition.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the CA erred in denying the motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, and (2) what is the proper disability grade and corresponding benefits due to respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court upheld the CA’s denial. While liberality in procedural rules is sometimes warranted, the mere claim of “pressure of work” is not a compelling reason for extension, especially as petitioners failed to file a mandatory motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision before resorting to certiorari.
On the substantive merits, the Court affirmed the award of total and permanent disability benefits. The determination of disability is not solely reliant on the gradings in the POEA contract but on the seafarer’s capacity to perform his usual work. The consistent findings of multiple physicians, including the company-designated ones, that respondent had a significant impediment (Grade 9), coupled with the nature of his illness and treatments, supported the conclusion that he was incapacitated from resuming his work as a seafarer. Total disability does not mean absolute helplessness but the inability to perform one’s customary job. Therefore, respondent was correctly deemed totally and permanently disabled, entitling him to the maximum benefit under his contract.