UPL v. Sibug (G.R. No. 201072. April 2, 2014)

CASE DIGEST: UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, Petitioners, vs. GENEROSO E. SIBUG, Respondent.

FACTS: Petitioners United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Holland America Line hired Sibug as waste handler on board the vessel MIS Volendam. On August 5, 2005, Sibug fell from a ladder while cleaning the silo sensor at a garbage room of the Volendam and injured his knee. He was repatriated and had anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery at the Manila Doctors Hospital. On January 19, 2006, he was declared fit to return to work from an orthopedic point of view.Sibug sought reemployment, passed the pre-employment medical examination, and was re-hired by petitioners in the same capacity for the vessel M/S Ryndam. On board Ryndam, Sibug met another accident while driving a forklift and injured his right hand and wrist. He was repatriated. He arrived in the Philippines on January 15, 2007, and had surgery for his Ryndam injury. On September 7, 2007, the company-designated doctor issued a medical report that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete disability. In an email dated September 28, 2007, the company-designated doctor classified Sibugs disability from his Ryndam injury as a grade 10 disability.

Sibug filed two complaints for disability benefits, illness allowance, damages and attorney's fees against petitioners.

In her Decision dated May 14, 2008, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the Volendam case.The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision. On reconsideration, the NLRC issued a Decision dated May 29, 2009 which set aside its December 8, 2008 Decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiters Decision. Later, the NLRC denied Sibugs motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated July 31, 2009. The CA set aside the NLRC Decision dated May 29, 2009 and reinstated the NLRC Decision dated December 8, 2008. The CA ruled that Sibug was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days on account of his Volendam and Ryndam injuries. Thus, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for both injuries.

ISSUES:  [1] Is Sibug entitled to permanent and total disability benefits for his Volendam and Ryndam injuries?

[2] Is he entitled to attorney's fees?

HELD: After our own review of the case, we find the petition partly meritorious. We rule that Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Volendam injury. But he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Ryndam injury and to attorney's fees.

Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Volendam injury since he became already fit to work again as a seaman. He even admitted in his position paper that he was declared fit to work. He was also declared fit for sea service after his pre-employment medical examination when he sought reemployment with petitioners. The medical certificate declaring Sibug fit for sea service even bears his signature. And he was able to work again in the same capacity as waste handler in Ryndam.

On this point, the Labor Arbiters ruling is amply supported by substantial evidence. On the other hand, the CA erred in ruling that Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for the injury he suffered at the Volendam. The facts clearly show that he is not.

As regards his Ryndam injury, we agree with the CA that Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit amounting to US$60,000. Petitioners, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred on this point. In Millan v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., we listed the following circumstances when a seaman may be allowed to pursue an action for permanent and total disability benefits:

(a) The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;

(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company-designated physician;

(c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;

(d) The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;

(e) The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;

(f) The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;

(g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and

(h) The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods.

Paragraph (b) applies to Sibugs case. The company-designated doctor failed to issue a certification with a definite assessment of the degree of Sibugs disability for his Ryndam injury within 240 days.

In this case, Sibug was repatriated and arrived in the country on January 15, 2007 after his Ryndam injury. He had surgery on his injured hand. On September 7, 2007, the company-designated doctor issued a medical report that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete disability. But this medical report failed to state the degree of Sibugs disability. Only in an email dated September 28, 2007, copy of which was attached as Annex 3 of petitioners position paper, was Sibugs disability from his Ryndam injury classified as a grade 10 disability by the company-designated doctor. By that time, however, the 240-day extended period when the company-designated doctor must give the definite assessment of Sibugs disability had lapsed. From January 15, 2007 to September 28, 2007 is 256 days. Hence, Sibugs disability is already deemed permanent and total.

We render a new judgment and ORDER petitioners United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Holland America Line jointly and severally to pay respondent Generoso E. Sibug US$66,000 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment.