G.R. No. 192686; November 23, 2011
FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, CAPTAIN VICTORIO S. MIGALLOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISE CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. HANZIEL O. ROSETE, Respondent.

FACTS

In 2005, respondent Hanziel O. Rosete was hired by petitioner Fil-Star Maritime Corporation, the local manning agency for co-petitioner Grandslam Enterprise Corporation, as a third officer on board the vessel “M/V Ansac Asia.” His work involved loading and unloading soda ash in bulk, exposing him to minute particles. After finishing his contract on November 22, 2005, he was re-hired as a second officer in January 2006. He passed a pre-employment medical examination and was declared “fit to work.” On February 14, 2006, while on board, he experienced an abrupt blurring of his left eye. He received medical attention in Japan and was diagnosed with Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, undergoing laser surgeries. He was repatriated on March 9, 2006, and underwent further surgeries in the Philippines. On August 11, 2006, Dr. Antonio Say declared his left eye legally blind with a poor possibility of recovery, constituting a partial permanent disability. The petitioners denied his claim for permanent total disability benefits under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), offering instead a Grade 7 disability rating under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC). Respondent filed a complaint for disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Rosete, awarding full permanent total disability benefits of US$105,000.00 under the CBA. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the award, reducing it to US$20,900.00 (Grade 7 under the POEA-SEC), holding that the CBA provision for US$105,000.00 applied only to disabilities resulting from an accident. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling that Rosete was entitled to total permanent disability benefits as he was unable to work for more than 120 days and had established a causal connection between his work and his illness.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Hanziel O. Rosete is entitled to total permanent disability benefits.
2. Whether he is entitled to disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
3. Whether he is entitled to attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition. The Court held that respondent Rosete is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, but not under the specific CBA provision for accidents. The award of attorney’s fees was affirmed.
1. On entitlement to total permanent disability benefits: YES. The Court ruled that Rosete is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. His illness, Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, is not listed as an occupational disease. However, compensability requires only reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causation. The Court found that the nature of his duties (exposure to soda ash particles, overtime work, and the vessel’s violent motions), combined with the fact that he was medically fit upon hiring and the illness manifested during his contract, constituted reasonable proof that his work contributed to his condition. Furthermore, his inability to work as a seaman for more than 120 days due to legal blindness in one eye constituted permanent total disability, as it rendered him incapable of performing his usual work.
2. On entitlement under the Collective Bargaining Agreement: NO for the specific US$105,000.00 accident benefit. The Court agreed with the NLRC that Article 28 of the CBA, which provided US$105,000.00 for “permanent disability as a result of accident,” was inapplicable because Rosete’s disability resulted from an illness, not an accident. However, the Court upheld the CA’s reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter’s award based on a different legal principle. The permanent total disability benefits must be awarded pursuant to the POEA-SEC and relevant jurisprudence, not the CBA’s accident clause. The Court found that Rosete’s condition amounted to permanent total disability under the law, warranting the maximum disability benefit under the parties’ agreement, which was the US$105,000.00 figure stipulated in the CBA for the highest level of disability.
3. On entitlement to attorney’s fees: YES. The Court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the judgment award. This is justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, as the claimant was compelled to litigate to protect his rightful claim, which the petitioners unreasonably refused to pay.