Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34150) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court arising from the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA). The petitioners are Hoegh Fleet Services Phils., Inc. and/or Hoegh Fleet Services AS (collectively referred to as Hoegh Fleet), while the respondent is Bernardo M. Turallo. On November 9, 2012, Turallo was hired by Hoegh Fleet as a Messman on board the vessel "Hoegh Tokyo," with an employment contract signed on December 27, 2012. This contract was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines and Hoegh Fleet Services AS.
Turallo passed the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and boarded the vessel on January 2, 2013. However, in September 2013, Turallo experienced severe back and chest pain. He officially reported this to his superiors on September 23, 2013. Following a referral on September 24, he was discharg
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34150) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Employment and Contractual Arrangements
- On November 9, 2012, petitioners (Hoegh Fleet Services Phils., Inc. and/or Hoegh Fleet Services AS) hired Bernardo M. Turallo as a messman aboard the vessel “Hoegh Tokyo” for a nine‑month period.
- The employment contract, signed on December 27, 2012, was covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines and Hoegh Fleet, evidencing the standard employment terms for seafarers under the POEA‑SEC.
- Medical Examination, Incident, and Treatment
- Turallo initially was declared “fit for sea duty” following his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME).
- On January 2, 2013, Turallo boarded the vessel. Sometime in September 2013, he began experiencing pain in the upper back and chest pain, which he reported on September 23, 2013.
- An “Incident/Accidents Personnel” report was filed by his department head and the vessel’s master, confirming his report and subsequent referral on September 24, 2013, by the ship’s captain to a doctor.
- Upon returning to Manila, Turallo was seen by the company‑designated physician who, after several referrals to an orthopedic surgeon and cardiologist and with additional diagnostic tests (including an MRI of the cervical spine and left shoulder performed on September 27, 2013, and an EMG-NCV on September 30, 2013), diagnosed him with multiple conditions: Acromioclavicular Joint Arthritis; Bicep Tear and Cuff Tear (Left Shoulder); Cervical Spondylosis secondary to C4‑C5, C5‑C6; Disc Protrusion; with a “rule out” for Ischemic Heart Disease.
- The company‑designated physician recommended several procedures that included stress echocardiography, arthroscopic surgery, joint debridement, subacromial decompression, cuff repair, and biceps tenodesis.
- A “private and confidential” correspondence dated December 23, 2013, noted that Turallo had undergone a C4‑C5, C5‑C6 Discectomy Fusion with PEEK Prevail surgery on December 19, 2013, and provided an interim assessment of his disability status pending further rehabilitation and treatment.
- Subsequent communications—the same day December 23, 2013—indicated that Turallo, though in stable condition, was to continue outpatient physical therapy and medication, and by January 10, 2014, it was certified that his treatment had been ongoing since September 25, 2013.
- Despite continuous rehabilitation, persistent pain (especially in the left shoulder) led Turallo to seek a second opinion on May 13, 2014. A government physician at the Vizcarra Diagnostic Center subsequently rated his condition as “partially and permanently disabled” for various affected body parts (with disability grades of 8, 10, and 11) and declared him “permanently unfit in any capacity for further sea duties.”
- Grievance, Arbitration, and Settlement Negotiations
- Following conflicting medical opinions and persistent symptoms, grievance proceedings were conducted on May 23 and June 2, 2014, under the auspices of AMOSUP.
- In these proceedings, petitioners offered US$30,231.00 based on a Grade 8 disability (reflecting partial disability), while Turallo proposed a settlement of US$60,000.00.
- The absence of an agreement prompted Turallo to file a Notice to Arbitrate with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board; during these proceedings, the petitioners revised their offer upward to US$50,000.00 plus allowances for additional medical costs and treatments.
- The dispute eventually moved to arbitration with pleadings and evidence duly submitted before the panel of arbitrators.
- Arbitration Panel Decision and Subsequent Appeals
- On May 27, 2015, the arbitrators rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay:
- Disability compensation of US$90,000.00, based on the maximum amount provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
- Sickness allowance of US$3,084.54.
- Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
- Legal interests at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.
- A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied in a resolution dated September 16, 2015.
- On November 8, 2016, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Panel’s decision; however, the CA modified the award of attorney’s fees by reducing it to US$1,000.00.
- Subsequent to these decisions, Hoegh Fleet and Turallo filed separate petitions for review on certiorari, which were later consolidated by the Court, leading to the Supreme Court’s eventual resolution on July 26, 2017.
Issues:
- Issue on Disability Assessment
- Whether Turallo should be entitled to total and permanent disability compensation as maintained by the Panel, considering that the company‑designated physician had rendered an interim Grade 8 disability assessment within the 240‑day period, or whether the benefit should be confined only to a partial disability award based on this assessment.
- Issue on Attorney’s Fees
- Whether the award of attorney's fees should remain at ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award (as contended by Turallo and supported by prevailing jurisprudence) or if a reduction—as made by the CA to a fixed amount of US$1,000.00—is justifiable under the facts and law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)