Case Digest (G.R. No. 211882)
Facts:
Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc., Enterprise Shipping Agency SRL and/or Evangeline Racho v. Ernesto S. Quiogue, Jr., G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Ernesto S. Quiogue Jr. was hired by petitioner Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc., for and on behalf of its principal Enterprise Shipping Agency SRL, to serve as Able Bodied Seaman aboard MT Filicudi M under a POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA‑SEC) and an ITF Total Crew Cost CBA that provided disability benefits. On November 11, 2010 Quiogue suffered a work injury when a co‑worker dropped a fire wire on his left foot; x‑rays and subsequent treatment abroad and at Metropolitan Medical Center in the Philippines showed fractures and later a diagnosis of non‑displaced fracture of the cuneiform bone, left foot.
Quiogue was treated by the company‑designated physician from November 2010 to April 2011; on April 13, 2011 the company physician certified him "fit to work." Dissatisfied, Quiogue obtained a second opinion from his private orthopedist, Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who concluded Quiogue suffered permanent disability and was "unfit for seaduty in whatever capacity as a seaman." Quiogue demanded permanent and total disability benefits; petitioners refused, invoking the company physician's fitness certification, so Quiogue filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
On September 26, 2011 the Labor Arbiter ruled for Quiogue, awarding US$89,000.00 as permanent and total disability benefits and 10% attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter, rejecting petitioners’ contention that the company‑designated physician’s assessment controlled and holding that a seafarer is entitled to seek private medical opinions under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA‑SEC; the NLRC also treated as decisive that the company physician’s "fit to work" certification was issued only after more than 120 days from repatriation.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 125064. The CA, by decision of July 5, 2013, affirmed the NLRC's ruling but deleted the attorney’s fees for lack of factual basis; its March 25, 2014 resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals and the NLRC gravely abuse their discretion in declaring Quiogue entitled to permanent and total disability benefits despite the company‑designated physician’s later certification that he was fit to work?
- Does Quiogue’s prior award of permanent disability from a former employer bar his present claim against petitioners?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees by the Labor Arbiter supported ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)