Facts:

The case revolves around Paulino M. Aldaba (Petitioner) who filed a petition against Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd., and Verlou Carmelino (Respondents). Aldaba was employed as a Bosun aboard the vessel M/V Cape Frio, with a monthly salary of US$564. The events leading to the litigation began on April 4, 2011, when Aldaba suffered an injury caused by twisted metal chains while performing his duties, resulting in a back injury. After the accident, he was examined at the Quality Health Care Medical Center in Hong Kong on April 7, 2011, where a fractured back was diagnosed, leading to his repatriation. Aldaba was examined by a company-designated physician upon his return on April 11, 2011, where x-rays revealed significant injuries, including a potential fracture.

The company-designated physician treated Aldaba for 163 days and ultimately issued a Medical Report on September 29, 2011, classifying him with a Grade 8 disability rating under the

...

Facts:

Employment and Work Situation

• Petitioner Paulino M. Aldaba was employed as a Bosun on board the vessel M/V Cape Frio.
• He was hired by respondents Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. and Verlou Carmelino, on behalf of their foreign principal, Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd.
• His basic monthly salary was US$564.00.

Occurrence of Injury and Initial Medical Evaluation

• On April 4, 2011, while performing his duties, petitioner was accidentally struck by twisted heavy metal chains on board, causing him to fall and sustain a back injury.
• On April 7, 2011, while the vessel was at the Port of Hong Kong, he was immediately examined at Quality Health Care Medical Center by Dr. Thomas Wong, who diagnosed a fractured back and declared him unfit to work.
• Consequently, petitioner was repatriated promptly after the diagnosis.

Subsequent Medical Assessment and Certification

• Upon arrival in Manila on April 11, 2011, petitioner was referred by the respondents to a company-designated physician at NGC Medical Specialist, Inc. for further treatment and rehabilitation.
• X-ray examinations revealed a “misalignment of distal sacrum that may suggest fracture” and an “anterior wedging deformity, T11 Osteopenia and early degenerative osseus changes” in the thoracic spine.
• After 163 days of continuous medical treatment, on September 29, 2011, the company-designated physician issued a medical report declaring:

- The patient had reached maximum medical cure. - The final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities was Grade 8 – indicating moderate rigidity or two-thirds loss of trunk motion or lifting power.

Independent Medical Assessment and Dispute Regarding Benefits

• Petitioner sought an independent evaluation from Dr. Misael Jonathan A. Ticman, an orthopedic surgeon, who confirmed that petitioner’s back injury resulted in permanent disability, rendering him unfit for any seafaring duties.
• Based on these findings, petitioner demanded total and permanent disability benefits.
• Respondents, however, were willing to compensate only based on the Grade 8 rating as determined by the company-designated physician.

Procedural History and Decisions

• Petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability, along with medical expense claims, before the NLRC.

- The Labor Arbiter initially ruled on April 27, 2012, in favor of respondents by awarding compensation of US$16,795.00 (Grade 8 rating) and dismissing other claims. - That he was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits due to his inability to work beyond 120 days. - That the independent doctor's assessment should be considered along with the company-designated physician’s certification. - That respondents’ failure to pay the full benefits exhibited bad faith warranting damages and attorney’s fees.

Issue:

Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits based on his work-related back injury.

• Whether the injury, sustained on board, qualifies as work-related under the applicable laws and contractual provisions.
• Whether the petitioner’s inability to work for a period exceeding 120 days, as evidenced by prolonged medical treatment, merits a declaration of permanent total disability.

The validity and sufficiency of the company-designated physician’s certification

• Whether sole reliance on the company-designated physician’s assessment, which was issued after 163 days of treatment (beyond the initial 120-day period), is proper.
• Whether the independent evaluation by petitioner’s doctor should have been given weight in determining his disability status.

Interpretation and Application of the 120-Day versus the 240-Day Rule

• Whether the 240-day extension prescribed by the IRR of the Labor Code may be applied without justifiable reasons when the company-designated physician fails to deliver a timely assessment within the initial 120 days.
• Whether the employer should bear the burden of proof to justify extending the evaluation period beyond 120 days.

The issue regarding the award of damages and attorney’s fees

• Whether petitioner demonstrated sufficient evidence of respondents’ bad faith or malice to warrant additional damages and attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)