Case Digest (G.R. No. 218871)
Facts:
Jebsens Maritime, Inc., Sea Chefs Ltd., and Enrique M. Aboitiz, Petitioners, vs. Florvin G. Rapiz, Respondent, G.R. No. 218871, January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On March 16, 2011, Jebsens Maritime, Inc., on behalf of its foreign principal Sea Chefs Ltd., engaged Florvin G. Rapiz as a buffet cook aboard the M/V Mercury under a nine-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$501.00. Rapiz boarded on March 30, 2011. In September 2011 he suffered severe pain and swelling in his right wrist/forearm while lifting a heavy load; shipboard medical reports recorded De Quervain’s tenosynovitis and he was medically repatriated in mid-October 2011. Rapiz received treatment from the company-designated physician and was finally assessed on January 24, 2012 with diagnoses including flexor carpi radialis tendinitis and a disability graded as Grade 11 under the 2010 POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). An independent physician later evaluated Rapiz on March 13, 2012 and rated his disability as Grade 10.
Rapiz demanded payment of total and permanent disability benefits but when petitioners did not pay he filed a Notice to Arbitrate with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), submitting the dispute to the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) (AC-305-NCMB-NCR-78-01-08-12). In a Decision dated January 25, 2013, the VA awarded Rapiz permanent and total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 plus attorney’s fees of US$6,000.00, finding that his disability persisted beyond 120 days after repatriation and that he could no longer work as a cook. The VA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a May 22, 2013 Resolution.
Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated January 20, 2015, the CA affirmed the VA, holding Rapiz’s disability to be permanent and total because he could not resume work for more than 120 days from repatriation, and likewise upheld the award of attorney’s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly hold that respondent Florvin G. Rapiz was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees to responden...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)