G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. AND REEDEREI CLAUS PETER OFFEN, Petitioners, vs. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Clemente M. Perez was hired as an Oiler by petitioners under a 10-month employment contract dated May 22, 2000, governed by the 1996 POEA-SEC and a CBA. On November 1, 2000, while the vessel was in Singapore, respondent failed to report for duty and appeared confused at the crewmess, leading the Master to repatriate him for safety. He was diagnosed with acute psychosis at Gleneagles Maritime Medical Center and declared unfit for sea duty. Upon repatriation to Manila, petitioners referred him to company-designated physicians. Dr. Baltazar V. Reyes, Jr.’s psychiatric evaluation noted respondent felt his illness was caused by unfair treatment from a German chief engineer and revealed a history of a similar breakdown in 1996. Dr. Reyes’s impression was recurrent acute psychotic disorder. Dr. Leticia C. Abesamis also diagnosed recurrent acute psychotic disorder but later reports, including a psychological evaluation, indicated respondent had an average intellectual level, no significant personality disturbances, and was fit to work abroad, though recurrence was possible. Petitioners provided respondent with SSS Forms/Medical Certificates signed by Dr. Abesamis to claim disability benefits from SSS but denied his claim under the CBA. Respondent sued for disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter awarded disability benefits and attorney’s fees, finding his illness recurrent and permanently impairing his ability to work. The NLRC reversed, disqualifying respondent due to alleged concealment of his pre-existing psychotic condition in his application, citing a 1997 certification by Dr. Constantine D. Della referencing “psychotic features” and respondent’s admission to Dr. Reyes. The CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award, applying the CBA’s disability provision (Section 21(a)) and awarding US$125,000 plus 10% attorney’s fees, ruling the illness was an “injury as a result of an accident” and that respondent was not guilty of concealment.

ISSUE

Is respondent entitled to US$125,000 as disability benefits and 10% thereof as attorney’s fees?

RULING

No, but respondent is entitled to US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits under the 1996 POEA-SEC, plus attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court modified the CA decision. The 1996 POEA-SEC, not the CBA, governs as the illness was not due to an accident. Under Section 20 of the 1996 POEA-SEC, a seafarer need only prove the illness was acquired during the employment term, which was established here. The Court found no sufficient evidence of willful concealment of a pre-existing illness to warrant disqualification under Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC; the 1997 certification was vague, and the company-designated physicians’ “fit to work” declarations were not conclusive as they also indicated the illness was recurrent and possible if triggered, rendering respondent permanently and totally disabled from his seafaring profession. The award of attorney’s fees was proper as respondent was compelled to litigate. The disability benefit is set at US$60,000 as stipulated for permanent and total disability under the 1996 POEA-SEC.