G.R. No. 220904 - Jebsens Maritime, Inc. vs. Pasamba

On November 19, 2009, petitioners—Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft—hired respondent Ruperto S. Pasamba as an Able Seaman for a six-month period.
On December 21, 2009, respondent boarded the vessel CMS Dusseldorf Express.
By January 24, 2010, respondent began experiencing symptoms such as a clogged nose, dizziness, and headache.

On February 4, 2010, while still aboard, respondent consulted an on-shore physician at a Japanese port. The physician diagnosed him with sinusitis, myringitis, vascular headache, and a suspicion of unstable angina, recommending immediate repatriation for treatment.
Respondent was repatriated on February 5, 2010, and later reported to petitioners’ office where he was referred to the company-designated doctors.

On February 9, 2010, respondent underwent further medical evaluation, receiving a diagnosis that included polysinusitis, hypoplastic frontal sinuses, congested turbinates, and bilateral mastoiditis.
Respondent underwent Mastoidectomy with Tympanoplasty procedures on February 25, 2010 (left ear) and May 14, 2010 (right ear), as recommended by the company-designated doctors.
After these surgeries, the company-designated doctors issued a Certificate of Physical Condition on July 9, 2010, declaring respondent “fit for work” despite noting expected temporary post-surgical symptoms such as blunted hearing acuity, ear fullness, and watery nasal discharge.

In November 2011, respondent secured re-employment as an Able Seaman with a different manning agency and principal, indicating his fitness had been recognized despite his previous illness.
On July 31, 2012, an independent doctor diagnosed respondent with “Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss, AD, and Profound Mixed Hearing Loss, AS,” prompting him to claim permanent and total disability benefits.

Respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter on August 13, 2012, seeking permanent disability benefits on the ground that he was unable to work.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent, declared “fit for work” on July 9, 2010, was not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, but he was awarded sickness allowance and attorney’s fees for the period from February 5, 2010, to July 9, 2010.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on December 11, 2013, awarding respondent permanent and total disability benefits based on his inability to work for over 120 days, while also modifying the sickness allowance period.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision in its December 17, 2014 ruling, upholding the award of permanent disability benefits despite the declaration of fitness by company-designated doctors on the 154th day after repatriation.
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari, asserting that the prolonged recovery and re-employment do not amount to permanent total disability and questioning the award of both disability benefits and attorney’s fees.

Is respondent entitled to permanent and total disability benefits given that he was declared “fit for work” after a prolonged period of treatment?
Is respondent entitled to sickness allowance from the date of repatriation until the final assessment of the company-designated doctors?
Is respondent entitled to attorney’s fees in view of the findings and awards made by the lower tribunals?