Philippines Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. NLRC

A seafarer's entitlement to permanent total disability benefits is established when a company-accredited physician declares him unfit to work, and the seafarer substantially complies with the post-employment medical examination requirement under the POEA Standard Employment Contract; disability is measured by loss of earning capacity, not by the medical significance of the injury alone.

Carlos Nietes was a licensed Master Mariner employed by Philippines Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) from March 1985 to May 17, 1990. He was a member in good standing of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), an affiliate of the International Transport Federation, and had union dues and insurance premiums checked off from his salary. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation was impleaded as surety of PTC. The dispute arose under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen, which governs the liabilities of the employer when a seaman suffers injury or illness during the term of his contract, including medical treatment, sick wages, and disability benefits.

Carlos Nietes was a licensed Captain and Master Mariner employed by Philippines Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) from March 1985 to May 17, 1990. He last boarded M/V MA. ROSARIO, serving as Master from April 11, 1990 to May 17, 1990, at a monthly salary of US$1,500.00. He was a member in good standing of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), an affiliate of the International Transport Federation of London, with union dues and insurance premiums checked off from his salary.

From May 10, 1990 up to May 17, 1990, the date he was repatriated, Nietes was hospitalized at the Moji Hospital in Moji, Japan, at the instance of the vessel's owners. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, PTC and AMOSUP instructed him to report to the Seamen's Hospital, a hospital owned and operated by AMOSUP. On May 19, 1990, three days after his repatriation, Dr. George Matti of the Seamen's Hospital examined and diagnosed Nietes, issuing a medical certification that he was unfit for work and was instructed to continue treatment and medication. Dr. Matti found Nietes to be suffering from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy.

When Nietes was refused admission at the Seamen's Hospital, he was compelled to secure medical treatment at the Sto. Niño Medical Specialist and Emergency Clinic as an out-patient, under the care of Dra. Geraldine B. Emperador. Her diagnosis likewise showed that he was unfit to work as Master of the vessel. On May 25, 1992, Nietes referred his claims to Atty. Oscar Torres, who repeatedly informed PTC of the claim for benefits and refund. Sometime in July 1992, he was informed that his claim was being handled by Atty. Augusto Arreza, Jr., PTC's legal consultant, and that all required documents had been submitted, including the carbon original of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Matti. From November 1992 until the filing of the complaint, no further communication occurred between the parties' counsel.

On January 23, 1993, Nietes filed a complaint against PTC for payment of disability benefits, sickness wages, refund of medical expenses, and attorney's fees. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation was impleaded as surety. He claimed entitlement to permanent total disability benefit equivalent to 86% of US$18,000.00, sickness wage benefit of US$6,000.00 under Section C, subsection (c) of the POEA Standard Format, plus 10% of the total judgment award as attorney's fees, and reimbursement of medical expenses totaling P34,411.00. The POEA Adjudication Office ruled in his favor on March 16, 1995, ordering PTC and Pioneer Insurance to pay jointly and severally US$21,000.00 or its peso equivalent and P34,114.00 as reimbursement of medical expenses, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the POEA decision but deleted the attorney's fees for lack of factual and legal basis. The NLRC subsequently denied PTC's motion for reconsideration.

• Absence of Proof of Permanent Disability: Petitioner argued that private respondent did not submit proof of the extent of his disability as required by Section C(4)(b) and (c) of the POEA Standard Contract for Seamen, and that without such proof, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the POEA's findings.
• Fault of Private Respondent: Petitioner contended that the absence of a determination of private respondent's permanent disability and the degree thereof was due solely to the private respondent's own fault.
• Sick Wages Without Declaration of Unfitness: Petitioner maintained that the award of sick wages for the full period of 120 days was improper absent a declaration of unfitness to work or a determination of the degree of permanent disability on record.
• Treatment by Non-Accredited Physician: Petitioner argued that the reimbursement of medical expenses should not have been granted because private respondent's treatment was performed by a physician not designated or accredited by petitioner, in violation of the POEA Standard Contract for Seamen.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Disability Benefits: Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in awarding disability benefits to private respondent despite the alleged absence of proof of his permanent disability and the degree thereof.
• Fault for Lack of Disability Determination: Whether the absence of a determination of private respondent's permanent disability and the degree thereof was due solely to private respondent's fault.
• Sick Wages for 120 Days: Whether the NLRC properly awarded sick wages for the full 120-day period notwithstanding the alleged absence of a declaration of unfitness to work or determination of the degree of permanent disability.
• Reimbursement of Medical Expenses: Whether the NLRC properly granted reimbursement of medical expenses despite treatment having been rendered by a physician not designated or accredited by petitioner.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Disability Benefits: No. The NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion, because private respondent was examined and declared unfit to work by a company-accredited physician at the Seamen's Hospital, substantially complying with the POEA Standard Contract.
• Fault for Lack of Disability Determination: No. The absence of a disability determination was not attributable to private respondent, who submitted himself for post-employment medical examination within three working days of repatriation as instructed by petitioner and AMOSUP.
• Sick Wages for 120 Days: Yes. Sick wages for 120 days were properly awarded, as private respondent was declared unfit to work by a company-accredited physician, and the POEA Standard Contract entitles the seaman to 100% of basic wages until declared fit or the degree of permanent disability is assessed, not exceeding 120 days.
• Reimbursement of Medical Expenses: Yes. Reimbursement was proper because private respondent initially sought treatment at the Seamen's Hospital under a company-accredited physician and was compelled to seek treatment elsewhere only after being refused admission thereat.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Disability Benefits: Petitioner admitted that private respondent suffered illness rendering him unfit for work. The record showed that private respondent was examined and diagnosed at the Seamen's Hospital three days after his repatriation, in compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement under Section C(4)(c) of the POEA Standard Contract. Dr. George Matti, a company-accredited physician, declared him unfit to work due to congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy. Two licensed physicians — one in Japan and one at the Seamen's Hospital — issued similar findings. Petitioner was well aware of the hospitalization and repatriation and had itself advised the examination at the Seamen's Hospital. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation; probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings. Disability is not understood in its medical significance alone but in terms of loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement to earn wages in the same kind of work the seaman was trained for or accustomed to perform; it does not mean absolute helplessness. Accordingly, the NLRC acted within its sound discretion in awarding permanent total disability benefits.

• Fault for Lack of Disability Determination: Private respondent substantially complied with the post-employment requirements under paragraph 4(b) and (c) of Section C of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen. He submitted himself, upon the instructions of petitioner and AMOSUP, to the Seamen's Hospital for medical examination under the care of a company-accredited physician within three working days of repatriation. The failure to complete the determination of the degree of disability was not solely attributable to private respondent, who was refused admission at the Seamen's Hospital after the initial examination.

• Sick Wages for 120 Days: Under Section C(4)(c) of the POEA Standard Contract, the employer shall pay the seaman 100% of his basic wages from the time he leaves the vessel for medical treatment until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed, but in no case shall the period exceed 120 days. Private respondent was declared unfit to work by Dr. Matti, a company-accredited physician. The award of sick wages for 120 days was therefore supported by the record and consistent with the contractual standard.

• Reimbursement of Medical Expenses: Private respondent initially sought treatment at the Seamen's Hospital under the care of Dr. George Matti, a company-accredited physician. Only after he was refused admission thereat was he compelled to seek medical assistance elsewhere. His life and health being at stake, he did not have the luxury to scout for another company-accredited physician. The POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen; its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in their favor so that its beneficent provisions may be fully carried into effect. It would be unfair for the employer to deny reimbursement for medical services to which the seafarer was admittedly entitled, merely because the accredited hospital refused him admission.

• Disability as Loss of Earning Capacity — Disability should not be understood principally in its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of a similar nature, that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of earning capacity. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the seafarer's declaration of unfitness by a company-accredited physician sufficed to establish permanent total disability, even without a precise medical quantification of the degree of disability.

• Liberal Construction of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen — The POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in their favor. The Court relied on this principle to uphold the reimbursement of medical expenses obtained from a non-accredited physician, because the seafarer was refused admission at the accredited hospital and could not be penalized for seeking treatment elsewhere.

• Substantial Compliance with Post-Employment Medical Examination — A seafarer substantially complies with the mandatory reporting requirement under Section C(4)(c) of the POEA Standard Contract when he submits himself to a company-accredited physician within three working days upon repatriation, even if the accredited hospital subsequently refuses admission and the seafarer must seek treatment elsewhere. The Court found substantial compliance where the seafarer reported to the Seamen's Hospital three days after repatriation and was examined and declared unfit by the company-accredited physician.

• Relaxed Rules of Evidence in Compensation Proceedings — Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits. Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings. The Court applied this doctrine to sustain the NLRC's award despite the absence of a formal determination of the degree of disability.

• "Strict rules of evidence, it must be remembered, are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits. Private respondent having substantially established the causative circumstances leading to his permanent total disability to have transpired during his employment, we find the NLRC to have acted in the exercise of its sound discretion in awarding permanent total disability benefits to private respondent. Probability and not the ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings." — This passage, quoted from NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. vs. NLRC, articulates the evidentiary standard governing labor compensation claims and was central to the Court's rejection of petitioner's argument that formal proof of the degree of disability was required.

• "Disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employment to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that [he] was trained for on accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness." — This passage defines the controlling concept of permanent total disability in Philippine labor jurisprudence and is frequently cited in subsequent seafarer disability cases.

• "The POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must, therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor. Only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect." — This passage states the canon of liberal construction applied to the POEA Standard Contract and was the basis for upholding the reimbursement of medical expenses from a non-accredited physician.

• NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. vs. NLRC, 269 SCRA 486 (1997) — Cited for the proposition that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits, and that probability, not certainty, is the test of proof. Followed as controlling doctrine.
• ECC vs. Edmund Sanico, 321 SCRA 268 (1999) — Cited for the definition of permanent total disability as loss of earning capacity rather than medical impairment. Followed.
• GSIS vs. CA, 285 SCRA 430 (1998) — Cited in support of the same disability-as-loss-of-earning-capacity doctrine. Followed.
• GSIS vs. CA, 260 SCRA 133 (1996) — Cited in the same string citation for the disability doctrine. Followed.
• Bejerano vs. ECC, 205 SCRA 598 (1992) — Cited for the principle that in disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated but the incapacity to work resulting in impairment of earning capacity. Followed.
• Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 318 SCRA 623 (1999) — Cited for the rule that the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen must be construed and applied liberally in favor of Filipino seamen. Followed.

• Section C(4)(b), POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen — Provides that if after repatriation the seaman still requires medical attention arising from injury or illness, he shall be provided such at cost to the employer until declared fit or the degree of disability has been established by the company designated physician. Applied to hold that the employer's liability for medical treatment continues post-repatriation.
• Section C(4)(c), POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen — Provides that the employer shall pay the seaman 100% of his basic wages until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed, but in no case exceeding 120 days; the seaman shall submit to a post-employment medical examination by the company designated physician within three working days upon return, failing which he forfeits the right to claim benefits. Applied to hold that private respondent substantially complied by reporting to the Seamen's Hospital within three days, and that the 120-day sick wage award was proper.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred.