Facts:

The case involves Eleosis V. Calo as the respondent and Alpha Ship Management Corporation, Junel M. Chan, and Chuo-Kaiun Company, Limited as the petitioners. The case was decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on January 13, 2014, following a series of decisions from the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals. Eleosis V. Calo worked for Alpha Ship Management Corporation and its foreign principal, Chuo-Kaiun Company Limited, since 1998, and was employed as Chief Cook on board the MV Iris on March 5, 2004.

On July 13, 2004, while the vessel was docked in Shanghai, China, Calo began experiencing severe back pain and other medical issues. He was diagnosed with urinary tract infection and renal colic during initial examinations. His condition worsened, and following consultations with different physicians, it was determined that he suffered from kidney problems, leading to his repatriation on October 12, 2004. Calo was examined by the

...

Facts:

Employment and Initial Medical History

• Respondent Eleosis V. Calo was employed by petitioners (Alpha Ship Management Corporation, Junel M. Chan, and/or Chuo-Kaiun Company Limited) since 1998 under seven employment contracts.
• On February 17, 2004, he was re-hired as Chief Cook on board CKCL’s vessel, MV Iris, and assumed duties on March 5, 2004.

Onset of Illness and Early Medical Consultations

• On July 13, 2004, while MV Iris was in Shanghai, China, respondent experienced lower back pain and abnormal urinary symptoms (passing urine with solid particles).
• Initial checkup revealed a urinary tract infection and renal colic; he was prescribed antibiotics.
• In August 2004, after condition persisted, he consulted another physician in Chile who identified kidney problems alongside the urinary tract infection, though he was declared fit for work on a light duty basis.

Escalation of Symptoms and Repatriation

• On September 19, 2004, respondent suffered severe pain in his loin area with symptoms suggestive of renal or ureter calculus; he was examined at Honmoku Hospital in Yokohama, Japan and was declared unfit for work pending further treatment.
• Consequently, he was repatriated on October 12, 2004 and referred to the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz.

Series of Medical Evaluations and Treatment by the Company-Designated Physician

• Dr. Cruz’s evaluation began on October 20, 2004, with subsequent appointments on November 10, November 17, December 15, and January 5, 2005.
• The examinations involved various tests (IVP x-ray, ultrasound of the kidneys, urinalysis, and KUB x-rays).
• Findings included: mild prostatic enlargement, signs suggestive of cystitis, detection of small, non-obstructing kidney stones, cortical cyst, and parenchymal calcification.
• Additional follow-up check-ups were carried out throughout January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and October 2005.
• On July 28, 2005, respondent sought a second opinion from his personal physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, who issued a two-page medical certificate.
• Dr. Vicaldo identified hypertension and left nephrolithiasis, declaring respondent unfit to resume work as a seaman and detailing further risks and the potential need for surgical intervention.
• Respondent underwent surgery for nephrolithiasis on August 31, 2005, and a September 12, 2005, x-ray revealed degenerative osseous changes in the lumbar vertebrae.

Filing of Claims and Subsequent Procedural History

• On October 18, 2005, respondent filed a claim for disability benefits, which was denied by petitioners.
• Subsequently, he filed a Complaint seeking total permanent disability benefits, illness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees.
• The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on March 30, 2007, granting permanent total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 and attorney’s fees of US$6,000.00, while dismissing other claims.
• The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on March 31, 2008, holding that the company-designated physician’s declaration of fitness (dated July 18, 2006) controlled, and noted respondent’s abandonment of treatment as a basis to dismiss the claim.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the Labor Arbiter Decision on December 17, 2009, holding that:
• The findings of the company-designated physician were not conclusively binding.
• The 120-day (or even 240-day) treatment period without a clear assessment of fitness established a presumption of total permanent disability.
• Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA on April 26, 2010.

Issue:

Whether respondent is entitled to disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers despite being declared fit to work by the company-designated physician.

• Specifically, whether the prolonged period of treatment (exceeding 120 and even 240 days) without a definitive declaration of fitness qualifies him as permanently and totally disabled.
• Whether the conflicting opinions between Dr. Cruz (company-designated physician) and Dr. Vicaldo (respondent’s personal physician) affect the right to benefits.

Whether respondent is entitled to attorney’s fees.

• Evaluating if the failure of petitioners to satisfy his valid claim compelled him to litigate and, consequently, justify an award of attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)