G.R. No. 168753; July 9, 2008
PHILIMARE, INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., BONIFACIO GOMEZ and ALBERTO GOMEZ, Petitioners, vs. BENEDICTO F. SUGANOB, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Benedicto F. Suganob, employed as Chief Cook by petitioners, was medically repatriated six days into his contract due to right shoulder pain. Upon arrival, petitioners’ designated clinic diagnosed him with right shoulder sprain, gouty arthritis, urinary tract infection, and hypertension, initially declaring him unfit for work. By October 29, 2001, the same clinic declared him fit to work provided he maintained medication. However, on April 5, 2002, Suganob’s personal physician declared him unfit for work due to age and recurring symptoms, leading Suganob to claim permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter awarded him sickness and permanent disability benefits.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for a determination of the degree of Suganob’s impediment by a physician agreed upon by the parties. Suganob filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, erroneously captioned as a petition for review under Rule 43 instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The appellate court treated it as a Rule 65 petition and later granted it, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision with the deletion of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the petition under Rule 65; (2) whether Suganob is entitled to permanent disability benefits; and (3) whether he is entitled to sickness allowance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the substance of a pleading, not its title, controls. While Suganob’s petition was mis-captioned under Rule 43, its contents complied with the requisites of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Procedural rules are applied suppletorily in labor cases to achieve substantial justice, and technicalities should not hinder merit adjudication.
On the substantive merits, the Court ruled Suganob is entitled to permanent disability benefits. The POEA Standard Employment Contract provides that an illness is disputably presumed work-related. Petitioners failed to rebut this presumption. The company-designated physician’s “fit to work” declaration was conditional and issued merely seven months into a possible 120-day treatment period, while Suganob’s own physician later declared him unfit. Total and permanent disability is determined not by a fitness-to-work assessment but by the seafarer’s incapacity to perform his customary work for more than 120 days. Suganob’s incapacity lasted beyond 120 days, entitling him to Grade 1 disability benefits. Consequently, the award of 120 days sickness allowance was subsumed under the permanent disability award and was correctly deleted by the appellate court.