GR 214906; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214906 , January 16, 2019
ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORP., CIDO SHIPPING COMPANY LTD., and ALEX S. ESTABILLO, Petitioners, vs. DANTE C. SEGUI, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Dante C. Segui was hired as an able seaman by petitioners. During his employment on board the vessel M/V Grand Quest, he experienced severe back pain on October 26, 2010, and was subsequently diagnosed with a lumbar disc problem, leading to his medical repatriation on December 2, 2010. Upon arrival, he was referred to the company-designated physician, underwent surgery, and received therapy. He later sought a second opinion from an independent doctor, Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who declared him permanently and totally disabled from work as a seafarer. Petitioners, however, relied on the assessment of their company-designated physician issued on July 8, 2011, which graded his disability only as Grade 8 (moderate rigidity), claiming he had reached maximum medical cure.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Dante C. Segui is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and attorney’s fees.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of permanent and total disability benefits and attorney’s fees. The Court applied the principle that when a seafarer’s medical treatment extends beyond 120 days, and no final disability assessment is issued by the company-designated physician within the 240-day period, the disability is deemed total and permanent. In this case, Segui was repatriated on December 2, 2010. The company-designated physician’s final assessment was issued only on July 8, 2011, which was beyond the 240-day period. Consequently, Segui’s disability is legally considered total and permanent.
The Court also found substantial evidence supporting the total and permanent nature of his disability. Medical records, including a June 22, 2011 report from the company-designated physician noting Segui’s “poor lifting capacity” and persistent pain, corroborated the independent doctor’s finding of permanent incapacity. The unanimous findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals further reinforced this conclusion. Attorney’s fees were properly awarded under Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code, as the case involves an action for indemnity under labor laws. Legal interest at 6% per annum was imposed on the monetary award from the finality of the decision until full satisfaction.