Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gatchalian, Jr., G.R. No. 207507, [February 17, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gatchalian, Jr.

 G.R. No. 207507, [February 17, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illness; fit-to-work order; Disability benefits Denied despite Knee Injury 

Without a binding third-party doctor’s opinion, the findings of the company-designated physician shall prevail over the assessment made by the seafarer’s doctor.

 

Jose worked as Chief Cook for Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. (Doehle-Philman) and Doehle (IOM) Ltd. (Doehle) since 2002. He signed a nine-month contract to serve onboard M/V Independent Endeavor and experienced intense knee pain on December 4, 2006, due to an accident in August 2006. He underwent surgery and therapy, and by February 14, 2007, was declared fit to work by the company-designated doctor. In 2009, Jose filed a complaint for total disability benefits, citing a medical certificate diagnosing him with Traumatic Arthritis. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, which the NLRC affirmed. However, the CA granted Jose permanent total disability benefits, considering the work-relatedness of his condition and petitioners' failure to rehire him. 

 

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the finding of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that Jose was properly declared fit to work. 

YES. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The fit-to-work assessment by the company-designated doctor was timely and valid. Jose failed to contest it within the prescribed period or comply with the procedure for the appointment of a third doctor. The fit-to-work assessment made by the company-designated doctor should prevail over the assessment made by Jose's independent physician. The seafarer is bound by the findings of the company-designated doctor, who has the proper discernment, knowledge, experience, and expertise on what constitutes total or partial disability. Thus, the company-designated doctor's assessment prevails. Moreover, Jose's failure to seek reemployment does not automatically entitle him to disability benefits. Non-reemployment of a seafarer does not automatically warrant the grant of total and permanent disability benefits. The seafarer must show that he sought employment but was turned down due to his disability. SC denied Jose's claim for permanent total disability benefits.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Blue Manila, Inc. v. Jamias, G.R. Nos. 230919 & 230932, [January 20, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Blue Manila, Inc. v. Jamias

 G.R. Nos. 230919 & 230932, [January 20, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Termination; Seafarer's Illness; Compensable medical repatriation; Three-day mandatory reporting requirement 

The employer's obligation under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC encompasses any illness complained of or diagnosed during the mandatory Post-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), even if it was not the immediate cause of repatriation. 

 

Petitioners Blue Manila, Inc. and/or Oceanwide Crew Manila, Inc. are the former and present manning agents of Wagenborg Crewmanagement BV (Wagenborg), owner of the vessel M/V Kwintebank. Seafarer Antonio R. Jamias worked for petitioners since 1998 and was rehired as Cook AB by Blue Manila in February 2011 under a 6-month contract covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines and Wagenborg. Jamias alleged that while performing his duties on board the vessel in August 2011, he experienced abdominal and lower back pain, which eventually led to his medical repatriation and diagnosis of constipation, umbilical hernia, and degenerative disc disease. Jamias filed a claim for disability benefits. 

 

Whether the back ailment suffered by seafarer Antonio R. Jamias is compensable. 

YES. The Court held that the back ailment is compensable under the POEA-SEC. It emphasized that the mandatory post-employment medical examination (PEME) is not limited to the cause of repatriation and found that Jamias' lower back pain was neglected by the company-designated physician. The Court asserted that the employer's obligation under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC encompasses any illness discovered during the mandatory PEME, even if it was not the immediate cause of repatriation. It was found that while Jamias was medically repatriated due to umbilical hernia, the company-designated physician failed to address his lower back pain despite ordering an MRI of the lumbosacral spine shortly after his repatriation. The physician even issued a fit-to-work certification without a definite medical assessment. Therefore, the employer is liable for such illnesses under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC. 

Furthermore, the Court determined that Jamias' back ailment, specifically his degenerative disc disease, is listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A (21) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, as it was caused by his duties involving constant strenuous use of his lower spine. The failure of the company-designated physician to provide a complete and definite medical assessment for Jamias' back ailment led the Court to consider it as permanent and total disability, entitling Jamias to full disability benefits under the CBA.

 CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Laurente v. Helenar Construction, G.R. No. 243812, [July 7, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Laurente v. Helenar Construction

G.R. No. 243812, [July 7, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illegal Dismissal; Security of tenure; Regular Employment; Strained Relationship test

The determination of regular employment is based on the nature of the job performed, not the employment contract.

 

Freddie B. Laurente, a painter, filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims against Helenar Construction and its owner Joel Argarin before the Labor Arbiter. Freddie claimed that he was a regular employee performing necessary and desirable work for the construction business of the respondents. He narrated that he had been continuously working as a painter for respondents' various projects since April 2012. However, on October 24, 2014, he was required to sign a labor contract for a period of three months, which he refused to sign. Subsequently, he was barred from entering the construction site.

Respondents argued that Freddie was not their regular employee but a subcontractor hired by William Bragais. They claimed that it is a common practice in the construction industry to hire subcontractors for specific works. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Freddie, declaring him as a regular employee and ordering respondents to pay him backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. 

 

Whether Freddie is a regular employee of respondents. 

YES. The Court emphasized that the determination of regular employment is based on the nature of the job performed, not the employment contract. The test is the reasonable connection between the employee's activity and the usual business of the employer. In this case, Freddie's work as a painter was necessary and desirable for respondents' construction business, making him a regular employee.BThe Court rejected the argument that Freddie was a project employee, as there was no evidence that he was adequately informed of his status as a project employee at the time of his engagement. The labor contract presented by respondents was deemed an afterthought to deny Freddie the benefits of a regular employee. 

As a regular employee, Freddie can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes and with due process. The Court found that Freddie was illegally dismissed, and due to the strained relationship between the parties, awarded him separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Backwages, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay were also awarded to Freddie. The Court further granted attorney's fees and ordered the total monetary award to earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision until it is fully paid.

 

 

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Salazar v. Simbajon, G.R. No. 202374, [June 30, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Salazar v. Simbajon

 G.R. No. 202374, [June 30, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Appeals in Labor cases; NLRC rules of procedure; Right to Appeal; Posting of Bond 

Compliance with the bond requirement for appeals involving monetary awards is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal of the appeal and render the decision final and executory. However, the court acknowledges that in meritorious cases, the bond requirement may be relaxed if there is substantial compliance with the rules governing appeals.

 

Simbajon, et al. filed a Complaint against Q.S.O. Disco Pub & Restaurant and/or Abelardo Salazar, Quirino Ortega, and Lucia Bayang before the Labor Arbiter. They alleged unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, and non-payment of benefits. Simbajon, et al. claimed to have worked in various capacities for the restaurant for several years. They asserted that after forming a union, they were harassed by the management, leading to their alleged dismissal under the pretext of business closure due to bankruptcy. However, they disputed the financial stability of the restaurant. 

Abelardo denied any employment relationship with Simbajon, et al., claiming that Lucia and Quirino were the owners of the restaurant and he was merely the lessor of the building. The Labor Arbiter held Abelardo, Lucia, and Quirino liable for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. Abelardo appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and posted bonds to secure the appeal. The NLRC later exonerated Abelardo.  Simbajon, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that Abelardo's appeal was not perfected due to non-compliance with the bond requirement. 

 

Whether or not Abelardo Salazar's appeal to the NLRC was properly perfected.

YES. The Supreme Court held that Abelardo Salazar's appeal was properly perfected. It emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, subject to compliance with the requirements of the law. In labor cases, Article 223 of the Labor Code and NLRC rules mandate the posting of a cash or surety bond for appeals involving monetary awards. Compliance with this requirement is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. However, the Court recognized that the bond requirement may be relaxed in meritorious cases, provided there is substantial compliance with the rules. 

In this case, Abelardo substantially complied with the bond requirement by posting a total of P3,600,000.00 out of the total monetary award of P3,683,394.45, within the reglementary period. The Court also examined the employment relationship between Abelardo and Simbajon, et al. applying the four-fold test: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and power to control. It found no substantial evidence supporting an employment relationship between Abelardo and Simbajon, et al. Abelardo's evidence, including contracts, tax returns, and other documents, supported his claim of being the lessor of the restaurant rather than the employer. Therefore, the Court reversed the CA's decision and reinstated the NLRC's ruling, exonerating Abelardo Salazar from liability.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Dusol v. Lazo, G.R. No. 200555, [January 20, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Dusol v. Lazo

G.R. No. 200555, [January 20, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illegal Dismissal; Employer-employee Relationship; Proof of employment

 

The elements of an employer-employee relationship, such as selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over work conduct, are important to establish the employment status and the nature of the relationship between parties involved in labor disputes. 

Pedro and Maricel Dusol (the petitioners) filed a complaint against Emmarck A. Lazo (the respondent), owner of Ralco Beach, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of benefits, and deprivation of procedural due process. Pedro had worked as the beach resort's caretaker since January 6, 1993, while Maricel was employed as a store manager starting January 28, 2007. They were compensated through allowances and commissions from the resort's rentals and sales. However, on July 31, 2008, Emmarck notified them of the resort's closure as he will be leasing out Ralco Beach, leading to their termination. The petitioners claimed that they were illegally dismissed. Whereas Emmark countered that they are partners and not employees, hence no illegal dismissal may took place. 

 

Whether Pedro and Maricel were employees or partners of Emmarck. 

NO. The court found merit in Pedro and Maricel's petition, as it was established that they were employees, not partners, of Emmarck. While Emmarck claimed a partnership existed, no documentary evidence supported this, and the mere receipt of profits does not establish a partnership when those profits are akin to wages. The court concluded that Emmarck had control over Pedro and Maricel's work, evidenced by his admission that he entrusted the resort's operation to them. Despite the absence of written guidelines, Emmarck exercised control, as demonstrated by his imposition of a mark-up on store items. Consequently, the lack of procedural due process in their dismissal rendered it illegal. As the resort's closure was not due to serious business losses, Pedro and Maricel were entitled to separation pay, nominal damages, wage differentials, 13th-month pay, and attorney's fees.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Junio v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 220657 (Resolution), [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Junio v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc.

G.R. No. 220657 (Resolution), [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

Collective Bargaining Agreement; Permanent Total Disability Benefits; Damages 

The court reaffirms the reciprocal obligations outlined in Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, emphasizing that while the seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination within three working days of repatriation, the employer is duty-bound to conduct a meaningful and timely examination of the seafarer. Failure to fulfill these obligations, particularly the employer's refusal to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician, may result in the seafarer's entitlement to total disability benefits being upheld by law, even in the absence of a formal assessment by the company-designated physician.

 

Celestino had been employed by Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. (Pacific Manning) for 16 years when he entered into a nine-month employment contract with Pacific Manning on behalf of its foreign principal, Mega Chemical Tanker (Mega Tanker), to serve as a Fitter onboard MCT Monte Rosa. Before deployment, Celestino underwent a pre-medical employment examination and boarded the vessel on January 30, 2011. On June 15, 2011, while performing maintenance, Celestino sustained an eye injury when a hose detached and hit his left eye. He reported the incident, but his request for a medical examination was denied as the vessel was departing. On September 11, 2011, Celestino collapsed while working and was referred to an offshore physician, Dr. Daniel Jenkins III. Celestino underwent medical tests, which revealed several health issues, including a partial tear in his posterior retina. He was repatriated on September 21, 2011, and sought medical treatment upon his return. Despite his requests, Celestino was not referred to a company-designated physician by Pacific Manning. He filed a complaint on February 10, 2012, seeking disability benefits and damages.

 

Whether Celestino is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees. 

YES. The Court found in favor of Celestino. It determined that Celestino's repatriation was due to medical reasons and not the completion of his contract. Celestino complied with the three-day mandatory reporting requirement by reporting to Pacific Manning within two days of repatriation. Despite this, Pacific Manning failed to refer Celestino to a company-designated physician. The Court concluded that Celestino's medical condition was work-related and compensable. Since no valid post-employment medical examination was conducted, Celestino's disability was deemed total and permanent by operation of law. Consequently, the Court reinstated the decision awarding permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees in favor of Celestino.

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. v. Centeno, G.R. No. 227655, [April 27, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

SSkanfil Maritime Services, Inc. v. Centeno

 G.R. No. 227655, [April 27, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

Collective Bargaining Agreement; Permanent Total Disability Benefits; Damages 

A seafarer who suffered permanent total disability due to a work-related accident is granted disability benefits and attorney's fees after the company-designated physicians failed to issue a valid medical assessment within the prescribed period, while the awards for moral and exemplary damages were deleted due to insufficient evidence of bad faith or fraud.

 

Almario was hired by Skanfil as a mess person on board M/V "DIMI" POS TOPAS in March 2013. On September 26, 2013, Almario fell from a ladder while working and suffered injuries. Almario was brought to a hospital in Japan and was diagnosed with a blunt head injury, blunt back injury, lacerated scalp wound, and brain concussion. Almario was repatriated to the Philippines on October 2, 2013, and was referred to the company-designated physicians for medical assessment and treatment. The physicians assessed Almario's injury as "S/P Suturing of Lacerated Wound on the Scalp, Fracture S3; Mild L3-L4 Disc Bulge." Almario was also treated by other specialists. After weeks of treatment and rehabilitation, Almario was cleared by the company-designated physicians and signed a 10th and Final Report and Certificate of Fitness for Work stating that he was "fit for duty” issued on February 7, 2014, or eight days beyond the prescribed period. However, Almario consulted another physician who declared him permanently unfit to resume sea duties. Almario filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits against Skanfil. 

 

Whether Almario is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 

YES. The court ruled in favor of Almario, granting him permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees. The seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits is governed by the law, the parties' contracts, and the medical findings. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total.

 

 

Here, the company-designated physicians failed to issue a valid medical assessment within the prescribed period of 120 days from Almario's repatriation. In this case, the 10th and Final Report and the Certificate of Fitness for Work are not final and valid assessments. They are incomplete and not definitive of Almario's state of health and capacity to resume work. Most importantly, they were issued beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, it was not a valid assessment. Consequently, Almario's disability is considered permanent and total. 

Skanfil was adjudged solidarily liable to pay Almario Centeno his total disability benefits under the CBA. The court deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages, as there was insufficient evidence to show bad faith or fraud on the part of Skanfil. However, the award of attorney's fees was retained. The court also imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on the total monetary awards until complete payment.

 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT OF THE CASE