G.R. No. 192389 September 23, 2015
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROLANDO F. OBLIGADO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rolando F. Obligado was engaged as a utility worker by Norwegian Cruise Lines through its local manning agency, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, on September 30, 2002. After a pre-employment medical examination, he boarded the MIV Norwegian Sky in November 2002. In January 2003, his right eye showed signs of redness, and he was diagnosed with anterior uveitis secondary to toxoplasmosis by an ophthalmologist, Dr. Heskith Vanterpool, who recommended he be signed off. He was repatriated to the Philippines on January 12, 2003. Upon arrival, he was referred to the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio Alegre of St. Luke’s Medical Center, who, through an ophthalmologist, Dr. Noel G. Chua, diagnosed him with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment OD. He underwent treatment. On June 9, 2003, Dr. Alegre issued a Medical Certificate declaring respondent “fit to resume work as a seaman,” and respondent signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work on the same day. On January 24, 2004, he filed a Complaint before the NLRC Arbitration Branch seeking reimbursement of medical expenses, permanent total disability benefits, and damages, asserting his eye condition made it impossible to return to his profession. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on August 31, 2005, a decision affirmed by the NLRC on May 28, 2008. The NLRC noted respondent failed to establish a causal connection between his illness and employment and the absence of a finding on the extent of his disability. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions on July 28, 2009, ruling respondent suffered permanent total disability because he was unable to perform his job for more than 120 days from repatriation, awarding him permanent total disability benefits and sickness allowances. Petitioner C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., as the new manning agency, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent is entitled to payment of permanent total disability benefits.
2. Whether respondent is entitled to sickness allowances.

RULING

The Petition is partly meritorious.
1. Yes, respondent is entitled to payment of permanent total disability benefits. The Court applied the ruling in Crystal Shipping v. Natividad, as the complaint was filed on January 24, 2004, which is prior to the clarification in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. promulgated on October 6, 2008. Under Crystal Shipping, permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days. Respondent was repatriated on January 12, 2003, and declared fit to work on June 9, 2003, which is 148 days after repatriation, exceeding the 120-day period. This fact is sufficient to declare that respondent suffered permanent total disability, entitling him to the maximum disability benefit of USD 60,000 under the POEA-SEC. The mere failure of the company to issue a disability rating within the 120-day period gives rise to a conclusive presumption of total and permanent disability.
2. No, respondent is not entitled to sickness allowances. The Court found that respondent failed to comply with the mandatory three-day reportorial requirement under the POEA-SEC. He did not report to the company-designated physician within three working days upon his return, which is a condition precedent for claiming sickness allowance. His failure to do so barred his claim for sickness allowance. The award of sickness allowances was therefore deleted.
The Court PARTLY GRANTED the Petition, DELETING the award of sickness allowances, and AFFIRMED the rest of the Court of Appeals Decision.