Title
Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. vs. Segui
Case
G.R. No. 214906
Decision Date
Jan 16, 2019
Seafarer Dante Segui, suffering work-related lumbar injury, deemed permanently disabled after company physician failed timely assessment; awarded maximum benefits under ITF CBA.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 214906)

Facts:

Employment and Medical History

  • Respondent Dante C. Segui was hired by petitioners Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation, Cido Shipping Company Ltd., and Alex S. Estabillo as an able seaman on board the vessel M/V Grand Quest.
  • He underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit to work. He boarded the vessel on June 16, 2009.
  • During his employment, Segui worked more than 12 hours daily, leading to extreme fatigue and exhaustion.
  • On October 26, 2010, while on duty, Segui experienced cramps and severe back pain. He was advised to rest but was unable to stand the next day and remained in his cabin for the rest of the voyage.
  • He was admitted to medical facilities in South Africa, Colombia, and Panama, where he was diagnosed with a lumbar disc problem and recommended for repatriation.

Post-Repatriation Medical Treatment

  • Segui was repatriated to Manila on December 2, 2010, and referred to Manila Doctors Hospital. A CT scan revealed "Circumferential Disc Bulge at L4-L5 with Posteromedial Herniation of the Nucleus Pulposus, Lumbar Spondylosis."
  • On December 14, 2010, he underwent Laminotomy and Discectomy at Level L4-L5 and was confined for three weeks.
  • Despite continued therapy, his condition did not improve. He sought a second opinion from Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who declared him permanently and totally unfit to work as a seafarer.

Petitioners' Defense

  • Petitioners admitted Segui’s engagement and repatriation but denied liability for permanent and total disability benefits.
  • They argued that Segui was treated by the company-designated physician, who assessed his disability as Grade 8 (moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion of the trunk) and declared him to have reached maximum medical cure.
  • They claimed Segui stopped attending medical appointments and filed a complaint without allowing the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment.

Labor Arbiter (LA) Decision

  • The LA ruled in favor of Segui, awarding him maximum disability benefits under the POEA-SEC and the ITF CBA. The LA found that Segui’s disability was work-related and that the company-designated physician’s assessment was issued after the 120/240-day period, making his disability permanent and total.

NLRC Decision

  • The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision, ruling that the ITF CBA provided higher disability compensation and that Segui’s disability was permanent and total.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

  • The CA upheld the NLRC’s decision, stating that Segui’s inability to work for more than 120 days rendered his disability total and permanent.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming disability compensation based on an unproven CBA.
  2. Whether the CA erred in disregarding the disability grading issued by the company-designated physician.
  3. Whether the CA erred in disregarding the findings of the company-designated physician.
  4. Whether the CA erred in disregarding Segui’s failure to refer the case to a third physician.
  5. Whether the CA erred in awarding attorney’s fees without evidence of bad faith.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision with modification. The Court ruled that:

  • Segui’s disability was permanent and total, as the company-designated physician failed to issue a medical assessment within the 120-day period and provided no justification for extending the period to 240 days.
  • The ITF CBA was proven and applicable, entitling Segui to maximum disability benefits.
  • The findings of the company-designated physician were not binding due to non-compliance with the 120/240-day rule.
  • Segui was entitled to attorney’s fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
  • Legal interest of 6% per annum was imposed on the monetary award from the date of finality until full payment.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.