G.R. No. 211872 , June 22, 2015
ROMIL T. OLAYBAL, Petitioner, vs. OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA, INC. and OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT [UK] LTD., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romil T. Olaybal was hired as an Oiler by respondents under various contracts. Under his latest contract from June 7, 2010 to October 1, 2010, he was assigned to M/V Overseas Sakura, covered by a CBA. He passed his PEME and was declared “Fit to Work.” In July 2010, while repairing the ship’s fresh water generator, SAF acid penetrated his eyes, causing irritation. On September 8, 2010, he experienced blurring of vision in his right eye but continued working. On September 18, 2010, he reported his condition and was later diagnosed in Tianjin, China with Retinal Detachment of the Right eye and Cataract, with a recommendation for immediate disembarkation. On October 1, 2010, in Singapore, he was diagnosed with two areas of retinal detachment in the right eye and extensive lattice degeneration of the retina with impending detachment in the left eye. He was repatriated on October 7, 2010, and reported to the company the next day. He was referred to company-designated physicians for treatment. On January 12, 2011, the company-designated physician issued an interim assessment of Grade 7 disability (total loss of vision of one eye) and opined that treatment would exceed 120 days. On February 8, 2011, Olaybal underwent eye surgery. On March 10, 2011, a medical certificate was issued detailing his treatments. On March 17, 2011, his personal physician, Dr. Mario D. Reyes, concluded his right eye vision suffered a permanent loss of useful visual acuity. On March 24, 2011, Olaybal filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits under the CBA, reimbursement of transportation expenses, and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding full disability benefits of US$89,100, transportation reimbursement, and damages. The NLRC affirmed but deleted the transportation reimbursement. The CA initially affirmed the NLRC but deleted the damages. Upon reconsideration, the CA amended its decision, awarding Olaybal a reduced amount of US$37,244 as partial and permanent disability benefit with Grade 7 Impediment, plus US$1,000 in attorney’s fees, deleting the moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: 1) finding petitioner entitled only to a Grade 7 partial permanent disability benefit instead of full permanent total disability benefits under the CBA; and 2) deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages and reducing the attorney’s fees.

RULING

The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the amended decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the disability benefit: The Court ruled that Olaybal was only entitled to a Grade 7 disability benefit, not total permanent disability benefits. The company-designated physicians issued an interim Grade 7 assessment on January 12, 2011, which was within the 120-day period from his repatriation (October 6, 2010). Olaybal filed his claim on March 24, 2011, before the lapse of the 240-day period granted to the company-designated physician to assess permanent disability. His claim was therefore premature. The Grade 7 assessment for the total loss of vision of one eye under the POEA-SEC is distinct from a finding of permanent total disability. Under the parties’ CBA, a seafarer is entitled to 100% compensation (US$89,100) only if his disability is assessed at 50% or more under the POEA Contract, or if assessed at less than 50% but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service by the company doctor. Here, the company-designated physicians assessed Olaybal at Grade 7 (41.80%), which is less than 50%, and did not certify him as permanently unfit for sea service. Thus, he was only entitled to the corresponding CBA rate for Grade 7, which is US$37,244.
2. On the damages and attorney’s fees: The Court affirmed the deletion of moral and exemplary damages. There was no evidence that the respondents acted in a fraudulent or oppressive manner. The reduction of attorney’s fees to US$1,000 was proper, as the award of attorney’s fees is subject to the court’s discretion based on the circumstances of the case.