G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011
WILFREDO Y. ANTIQUINA, Petitioner, vs. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION and/or MASTERBULK, PTE., LTD., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wilfredo Y. Antiquina was hired by respondent Magsaysay Maritime Corporation for its principal, Masterbulk Pte., Ltd., as Third Engineer on the M/T Star Langanger for nine months under a standard POEA contract. On September 22, 2000, during a routine maintenance, a part fell on him, fracturing his lower left arm. He received first aid and was treated at a hospital in Romania, where his arm was put in a cast. He was repatriated on October 3, 2000. Upon reporting to the company, he was referred to company-designated doctors. An examination confirmed an undisplaced fracture of the left ulna. After cast removal and physical therapy, his arm did not heal properly. A company doctor, Dr. Tiong Sam Lim, recommended a bone grafting procedure. Petitioner, fearing the long-term implantation of metal, refused the operation. He then filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees. He relied on medical certificates from his own doctors, Dr. Rimando Saguin and Dr. Antonio A. Pobre, who found him unfit for sea service and recommended a partial permanent disability grade of 11 under the POEA schedule. He also claimed entitlement to higher benefits under Section 20.1.5 of the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which provided for 100% compensation (US$80,000 for officers) if permanently unfit. Respondents contended the claims were premature due to petitioner’s refusal to undergo the recommended operation, presented Dr. Lim’s opinion that without surgery the disability would be Grade 10, and claimed they had already paid sickness allowance. The Labor Arbiter ruled for petitioner, awarding US$3,614 as sickness allowance, US$80,000 as permanent medical unfitness benefits under the CBA, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC dismissed respondents’ appeal. The Court of Appeals modified the decision, finding respondents had already paid sickness allowance (totaling ₱178,468.32 based on receipts submitted on appeal) and that petitioner failed to prove membership in AMOSUP or present the CBA to claim the US$80,000 benefit. The CA awarded disability benefits based on the POEA schedule, using Grade 10 (14.93%) as assessed by the company doctor, applied to the CBA’s rating benefit of US$50,000, resulting in US$7,465.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) considering evidence of sickness allowance payment first presented on appeal; and (2) not awarding the full US$80,000 permanent medical unfitness benefit under the AMOSUP CBA.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision with modification on the computation.
1. On the sickness allowance, the Court upheld the CA’s consideration of the payment receipts even if first submitted on appeal. Citing Article 221 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence, labor officials are not bound by technical rules of procedure and should use all reasonable means to ascertain facts. The receipts, bearing petitioner’s signatures, constituted clear evidence of payment, and their consideration was in the interest of substantial justice.
2. On the permanent disability benefit, the Court agreed with the CA that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for the US$80,000 CBA benefit. He did not present the CBA itself or proof of his membership in AMOSUP, which was necessary to avail of the union’s bargaining agreement. Without such proof, he could not claim benefits thereunder. The award must be based on the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The company-designated physician’s assessment of Grade 10 disability (14.93%) was upheld. However, the Court found the CA’s computation erroneous. The base figure should be the disability benefit specified in the POEA contract (US$50,000 for officers), not the CBA’s rating benefit. The correct computation is US$50,000 x 14.93% = US$7,465. The CA’s dispositive portion stating US$7,480 was a clerical error and was corrected. Petitioner’s refusal to undergo the recommended surgery without valid reason meant he was not entitled to a higher disability grade or total disability benefits.