Title
Cutanda vs. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 219123
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2017
Seafarer injured on duty, deemed permanently disabled after 240 days; awarded $60K, moral damages, and attorney’s fees due to employer’s bad faith.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 219123)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Employment and Initial Medical Examination: Petitioner Desiderio C. Cutanda was hired by respondent Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. (MNPI) as a Key Able Seaman for a 10-month contract. Prior to employment, he underwent a medical examination and was declared "fit to work." He had previously worked for the respondents for 15 years under different contracts.

Work Responsibilities and Accident: On April 3, 2012, petitioner joined the vessel MV "Malte Rambow." His duties included supervising maintenance, repair works, and ensuring crew safety. On October 8, 2012, while performing his duties at the Port of Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia, petitioner’s left hand was caught and crushed by a tug’s line, severely injuring his left index and middle fingers. He was immediately treated at Puteri Specialist Hospital in Malaysia and repatriated to the Philippines the next day.

Medical Treatment in the Philippines: Upon arrival, petitioner reported to MNPI’s office and was referred to Notre Dame Medical Clinic, where he was diagnosed with "Lacerated Wounds 2nd & 3rd digits, Left Hand." He underwent physical therapy for six months but remained unfit for work, as per medical certificates issued by Panay Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Institute (PORI). Despite his condition, respondents discontinued his treatment after 120 days and refused to cover his medical expenses.

Filing of Complaint: Petitioner filed a complaint for total disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, sick allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. He argued that his injuries rendered him permanently and totally disabled, entitling him to $60,000 under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Respondents’ Defense: Respondents contended that petitioner was assessed with a "Grade 10" disability by the company-designated physician, Dr. Orlino Hosaka, Jr., and was provided medical care. They argued that his disability was not total or permanent and that they acted in good faith.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner suffered permanent total disability.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying only Section 32 of the POEA-SEC and not the Labor Code provisions.
  • Whether petitioner is entitled to moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.