Case Digest (G.R. No. 243399)
Facts:
The case involves C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. and Reederei Claus-Peter Offen (GMBH & Co.) as petitioners and Roberto B. Daganato as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on June 25, 2014, when Daganato signed a Contract of Employment with C.F. Sharp as a Chief Cook aboard the MV Vancouver Express, owned by Reederei, with a monthly salary of USD 1,805. The contract included provisions from the current ITF Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). After passing a pre-employment medical examination, Daganato was declared fit to work. However, on December 27, 2014, while carrying heavy provisions, he slipped and fell, resulting in persistent lower back pain. He was medically repatriated on January 10, 2015, and subsequently underwent various medical examinations, including MRI and CT scans, which revealed significant spinal issues. Despite undergoing surgeries and physiotherapy, Daganato remained unfit for work and was declared permanently disabled by his phy...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 243399)
Facts:
Employment and Deployment
- C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. (CF Sharp), a domestic corporation engaged in hiring and deploying seafarers, employed Roberto B. Daganato (respondent) as Chief Cook on June 25, 2014, for a six-month contract on the vessel MV Vancouver Express, owned by Reederei Claus-Peter Offen (GMBH & Co.) (Reederei).
- The employment contract incorporated the provisions of the ITF Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Respondent was declared fit to work after a pre-employment medical examination.
Accident and Medical Condition
- On December 27, 2014, while carrying heavy provisions, respondent slipped and fell, causing mild to moderate lower back pain. The pain persisted, and his condition worsened, leading to his medical repatriation on January 10, 2015.
- Medical examinations, including MRI and CT scans, revealed:
- Mild L4-5 disc bulge, facet hypertrophy, and spondylosis.
- Respondent underwent multiple surgeries and physiotherapy but remained unfit for seafaring duties.
Disability Claim
- Respondent sought total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA, claiming he could no longer perform his duties as a Chief Cook. He submitted a medical report from Dr. Manuel M. Magtira, who declared him permanently unfit for seafaring.
- CF Sharp denied the claim, arguing that respondent’s condition did not qualify for total permanent disability under the POEA-SEC and that no accident report was submitted.
Proceedings Before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA)
- The PVA ruled in favor of respondent, awarding him USD 121,176.00 as total permanent disability benefits under the CBA, plus attorney’s fees. CF Sharp’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
- The CA affirmed the PVA’s decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. It held that respondent’s disability was total and permanent, as the company-designated physician failed to issue a final assessment within the 120-day period.
Issue:
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the PVA’s award of total and permanent disability benefits to respondent.
- Whether the CBA applies to respondent’s claim, given the absence of an accident report.
- Whether respondent’s disability benefits should be computed under the POEA-SEC or the CBA.
- Whether respondent’s position as Chief Cook qualifies him for the disability benefits under the CBA’s “Junior Officers” category.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, modifying the CA’s decision as follows:
- Total and Permanent Disability: The Court upheld the finding that respondent suffered a total and permanent disability. The company-designated physician failed to issue a final assessment within the 120-day period, and respondent’s medical condition rendered him unfit for seafaring duties.
- Applicability of the CBA: The CBA applies, as it provides better benefits than the POEA-SEC. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the absence of an accident report disqualifies respondent from claiming benefits under the CBA.
- Disability Benefits: The Court reduced the award from USD 121,176.00 (for Junior Officers) to USD 95,949.00, as respondent’s position as Chief Cook falls under the “Ratings” category in the CBA.
- Attorney’s Fees: The Court reinstated the award of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the disability benefits, as respondent was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.
- Interest: The Court imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on the monetary award from the date of finality of the decision until full payment.
Ratio:
- Total and Permanent Disability: Under the Labor Code, POEA-SEC, and jurisprudence, a seafarer’s disability becomes total and permanent if the company-designated physician fails to issue a final assessment within 120 days (or 240 days if justified). Respondent’s disability was deemed permanent and total due to the company-designated physician’s failure to provide a timely assessment.
- CBA Over POEA-SEC: When a CBA provides better benefits, it prevails over the POEA-SEC. The CBA’s provisions on disability compensation apply to respondent’s claim.
- Burden of Proof: Petitioners failed to disprove respondent’s claim of an accident, as they did not present the vessel’s accident report. The Court held that the burden of proof lies with the employer to disprove the seafarer’s claim.
- Classification of Respondent’s Position: Respondent’s position as Chief Cook falls under the “Ratings” category in the CBA, not “Junior Officers.” Thus, the disability benefits were adjusted accordingly.
- Attorney’s Fees: Attorney’s fees are recoverable in labor cases where the employee is forced to litigate to protect their rights. The Court reinstated the 10% attorney’s fees award.
- Legal Interest: Imposing legal interest ensures that the monetary award retains its value until full payment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s finding that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA but reduced the award to USD 95,949.00, consistent with his classification as a “Rating.” The Court reinstated the award of attorney’s fees and imposed legal interest on the monetary award.