G.R. No. 176884; October 19, 2011
CARMELITO N. VALENZONA, Petitioner, vs. FAIR SHIPPING CORPORATION and/or SEJIN LINES COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmelito N. Valenzona was hired as a 2nd Assistant Engineer on May 5, 2001, and declared “fit to work” before embarkation. While aboard the vessel on September 29, 2001, he complained of chest pain, was confined in Mexico, and diagnosed with hypertensive crisis. He was repatriated on October 8, 2001. The company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, diagnosed him with hypertension and treated him from October 9, 2001, to April 25, 2002. On April 18, 2002, petitioner consulted another doctor who diagnosed him with Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease. On the same date, he demanded permanent disability benefits from respondents. On April 25, 2002, Dr. Cruz issued a certification declaring petitioner fit to work. On April 27, 2002, petitioner consulted Dr. Rodrigo F. Guanlao, an Internist-Cardiologist, who diagnosed him with “Ischemic heart disease, Hypertensive cardiovascular disease and congestive heart failure” and declared him unfit to work. Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance, attorney’s fees, and damages. The Labor Arbiter awarded a balance of sickness allowance and a one-month salary penalty but denied disability benefits, citing the CBA (which he interpreted as covering only accident-related disabilities) and the company physician’s fit-to-work assessment. The NLRC deleted the awards, finding the sickness allowance extinguished by payment and the penalty without basis. The CA affirmed, agreeing that the CBA provision on disability referred to accidents, not illness, and that the company physician’s assessment was more credible.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent disability benefits and attorney’s fees.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and awarded permanent disability benefits.
The Court held that the certification by the company-designated physician declaring petitioner fit to work was issued on April 25, 2002, which was 199 days after his repatriation on October 8, 2001. Under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, if a seafarer’s illness persists beyond 120 days from repatriation, it is considered a permanent and total disability, regardless of any subsequent fit-to-work declaration. The Court emphasized that permanent disability refers to the inability to work for more than 120 days, and permanent total disability means the disablement from earning wages in the same kind of work or work of similar nature. Since petitioner was unable to work for more than 120 days, he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
The Court rejected the lower tribunals’ reliance on the CBA provision, noting that the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which is integrated into petitioner’s employment contract, governs compensation for illness. It also found the assessment of the company-designated physician less credible as it was issued beyond the 120-day period, thereby constituting a permanent total disability. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Attorney’s fees were also awarded as petitioner was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.