G.R. No. 259982 , October 28, 2024
PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC. AND/OR V. SHIPS UK LTD./NORDIC AMERICAN TANKERS LIMITED, PETITIONERS, VS. NICOLAS F. BOBILES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Nicolas F. Bobiles was hired by petitioner Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. (POMI), the local agent for foreign principal V. Ships UK Ltd., as a Pumpman on board the vessel Nordic Vega. His employment contract was covered by a CBA and the POEA-SEC. On January 27, 2017, while lifting equipment, Bobiles felt a snap in his back, causing severe pain. He was eventually repatriated and underwent medical treatment. The company-designated physician assessed him with a Grade 11 disability. Bobiles sought a second opinion from his own doctor, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duty. Grievance proceedings ensued but were terminated for failure to reach a settlement. Bobiles filed a case claiming total permanent disability compensation, unpaid sick wages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) ruled in favor of Bobiles, awarding him US$102,308.00 as total permanent disability compensation plus 10% attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NCMB decision with modification. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue revolves around the propriety of awarding attorney’s fees in a seafarer’s disability compensation case. Specifically, whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under Article 111 of the Labor Code or Article 2208 of the Civil Code in such cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modification, deleting the award of attorney’s fees.
The Court clarified the rules on awarding attorney’s fees in worker disability indemnification cases:
1. Attorney’s fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code are recoverable only in cases involving unlawful withholding of wages, not in cases involving only indemnification claims for disability or death.
2. Attorney’s fees under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code (where the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest) are not applicable. It is not sufficient that the plaintiff was compelled to litigate or incur expense to protect his interest; such litigation or expense must be in relation to third persons. A contrary rule would make attorney’s fees the general rule and negate the policy against placing a premium on the right to litigate.
3. Attorney’s fees under Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code (in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws) are recoverable only in actions for indemnity under specific workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws, not under contract. Since Bobiles’ claim is based on his employment contract and the CBA, not under a specific compensation statute like the Labor Code’s provisions on Employees’ Compensation, this ground does not apply.
The Court found that Bobiles’ claim was solely for disability compensation under his contract and the CBA. There was no evidence of unlawful withholding of wages to justify attorney’s fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, the conditions under Article 2208(2) and (8) of the Civil Code were not present. Therefore, the award of attorney’s fees had no legal basis and was deleted. The award of total permanent disability compensation was upheld.