G.R. No. 204699 November 12, 2014
BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINE, and MS. CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, Petitioners, vs. JOEL P. HIPE, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Joel P. Hipe, Jr. was continuously hired by petitioner Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. for its foreign principal, Fred Olsen Cruise Line. He was last employed as a plumber under a six-month contract commencing December 6, 2007. Despite the contract’s lapse on June 6, 2008, Hipe continued working. On June 22, 2008, he sustained a back injury while carrying heavy equipment. He was advised to rest and was eventually repatriated to Manila on August 5, 2008. Upon arrival, the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, examined him. Results revealed “Lumbosacral Strain with right L5 Radiculopathy.” After treatment, Dr. Lim declared Hipe fit to work on October 9, 2008, and Hipe executed a Certificate of Fitness for Work. Subsequently, on February 25, 2009, Hipe sought a second opinion from Dr. Venancio P. Garduce, Jr., who declared him unfit to work as a seaman-plumber and assessed a disability rating at Grade 5. Hipe then filed a complaint for permanent disability compensation and other benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Hipe’s favor, awarding disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals initially upheld the NLRC but, upon reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in granting Hipe’s petition for certiorari, thereby setting aside the NLRC Decision and adjudging Hipe’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is meritorious. It found that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in granting the certiorari petition because the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized that for a grant of certiorari, the petitioner must show grave abuse of discretion, which connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. The onus probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his claim by the requisite quantum of evidence. The Court held that Hipe failed to prove his entitlement to disability benefits. The company-designated physician declared him fit to work within the 120/240-day period, and Hipe executed a Certificate of Fitness for Work. His claim was primarily based on the second opinion of his chosen physician, Dr. Garduce, obtained months after the fit-to-work declaration. The Court reiterated that the company-designated physician’s assessment is given greater weight, especially when the seafarer fails to comply with the procedure under the POEA-SEC for disputing such assessment by seeking a third, jointly-nominated doctor. The NLRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and thus, it did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC Decision dismissing Hipe’s complaint.