G.R. No. 212049 July 15, 2015
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, MARLON R. RONO and “STAR PRINCESS”, Petitioners, vs. ROMEO V. PANOGALINOG, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Romeo V. Panogalinog was employed by petitioner Magsaysay Maritime Corporation for its foreign principal, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., as a Mechanical Fitter on board the vessel “Star Princess” under a ten-month contract commencing December 18, 2009. On April 27, 2010, he suffered injuries when he hit his right elbow and forearm on a sewage pipe during maintenance work. He was diagnosed with “Lateral Epicondylitis, Right” and was medically repatriated on May 9, 2010. Upon repatriation, company-designated physicians diagnosed the same condition and advised physical therapy. On September 15, 2010, a company-designated physician declared him fit to return to work. Respondent then consulted an independent physician, Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr., who, on October 13, 2010, found him “physically unfit to go back to work.” On the same date, respondent filed a complaint for permanent total disability compensation, medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and other benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, awarding US$80,100.00 as permanent total disability benefits and moral and exemplary damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the complaint, giving more weight to the findings of the company-designated physicians. The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s certiorari petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling that respondent was entitled to full permanent total disability benefits because more than 120 days had elapsed before the company-designated physicians made their findings and respondent was not redeployed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave error in awarding respondent permanent total disability benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is meritorious. The Court 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. The entitlement to disability benefits is governed by law, contract, and medical findings. The applicable contract was the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) Cruise Ship Model Agreement (CBA), which provided for full compensation if an injury results in “loss of profession,” meaning the physical condition prevents a return to sea service. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s assessment is primary. The declaration of fitness to work by the company-designated physician on September 15, 2010, was issued within the 240-day extended period for treatment under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and relevant jurisprudence. The mere lapse of more than 120 days does not automatically result in permanent total disability; the seafarer must also show that he is unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 or 240 days. Respondent failed to substantiate his claim of permanent total disability. His reliance on the independent physician’s findings was insufficient to overturn the company-designated physician’s assessment, especially since he did not refer the conflicting assessments to a third doctor as required by the CBA. The Court also found no basis for the award of moral and exemplary damages as there was no evidence of bad faith. The NLRC decision was reinstated, and the complaint was dismissed.