G.R. No. L-2746 - Carino vs. Insular Government

Camoral was deployed overseas for 18 years starting in 1991 by Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. through its local agent, Maunlad Trans., Inc.
In April 2009, he was assigned aboard M/S Carnival Sensation as an ice carver, a position requiring heavy physical exertion and the use of heavy equipment in sub-zero freezer conditions.
Prior to his assignment, requisite physical evaluations declared him “Fit for Sea Duty (Without Restriction).”

In September 2009, while performing his duties, Camoral experienced a sudden onset of excruciating neck pain that radiated to his shoulder, chest, and hands, forcing him to collapse at the workplace.
Efforts with pain relievers were ineffective and the ship’s doctor advised cessation of work, deeming Camoral unfit for further duty.
On advice from the company doctor in Florida, a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan of his cervical spine was performed on September 25, 2009, which revealed:

A moderately large, broad-based posterior disc herniation at C5-6, with obliteration of the subarachnoid space and severe bilateral neural foraminal stenosis, resulting in compression of the exiting C6 nerves (more pronounced on the right).
A small-to-moderate sized, posterior broad-based disc herniation at C4-5, with resultant effacement of the subarachnoid space and mild right-sided neural foraminal stenosis.
Slight reversal of the cervical lordotic curvature, consistent with muscle spasm.

Based on these findings, Dr. James E. Carter diagnosed Camoral with “Cervical Disc Herniation and Radiculopathy,” and declared him unfit for duty.

After repatriation on October 4, 2009, Camoral was further examined by company doctors at the Marine Medical Services of the Metropolitan Medical Center.
On October 26, 2009, he underwent an “Anterior C5 Discectomy Fusion with Pyramidal Cage and Mastergraft Plating,” with his pre- and post-operative diagnoses indicating “Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy secondary to C4-C5, C5-C6 Disc Protrusion.”
Despite rigorous physical therapy for more than five months, his condition did not significantly improve; the pain in his neck, chest, and shoulder persisted.
Seeking further evaluation, he consulted Dr. Rogelio P. Catapang, Jr., who on February 22, 2010:

Noted persistent neck pain worsened by neck rotation and limited neck movement.
Diagnosed that Camoral had lost his pre-injury capacity and was unfit to resume his previous occupation as a seafarer.
Advised restrictions to prevent aggravation through any activities involving torsional stress, repetitive bending, or lifting.

After failing to secure additional financial assistance for his treatment and medications, Camoral was offered $10,075.00 corresponding to a Grade 10 disability – a figure based on assessments by company doctors.
Camoral declined the offer and sued the petitioners for total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00, citing the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Terms and Conditions (POEA SEC) that govern Filipino seafarers’ employment.
The petitioners, in their answer, contended:

Camoral was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because the medical assessments by the company-designated doctors indicated a Grade 10 disability rather than a Grade 1 (which was deemed necessary under certain interpretations).
They argued that follow-up reports from company doctors demonstrated improvement and recovery, with documentation showing good alignment, fusion, and adequate muscle strength.
The petitioners maintained that they had complied with their obligations by paying all sickness allowances and medical expenses.

Found that under Section 20-B of the POEA SEC, the conditions for compensability of a work-related injury/illness were met.
Ruled that Camoral’s inability to resume his trained occupation qualified as total disability, irrespective of the company doctors’ grading.
Awarded Camoral total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 plus an additional ten percent as attorney’s fees.

Affirmed the LA’s award recognizing that the injury was work-related and occurred during the term of the contract.
Highlighted that the test is based on the impairment of the seafarer’s capacity to earn, not on the physicality of the injury.
Sustained the award of attorney’s fees.

Upheld the NLRC’s ruling, emphasizing that the seafarer’s inability to resume his customary work for over 120 days amounted to permanent and total disability.
Rejected reliance solely on the disability grading by petitioners, citing supporting jurisprudence (e.g., Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Mesina, Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, and others).
Affirmed the award for attorney’s fees, noting that Camoral was forced to secure legal representation due to the petitioners’ unreasonable conduct.

They questioned the factual basis of the appellate court’s conclusion, asserting that the Grade 10 disability assigned within the 240-day treatment period should control.
They argued that Camoral was assessed only once by his private doctor while the company doctors had a more extended treatment period.
They disputed the award of attorney’s fees, claiming compliance with all POEA SEC obligations.

The Supreme Court, however, found that once a seafarer is declared unfit to resume his previous work beyond the designated periods, the determination of total and permanent disability is justified.

Whether the disability grading provided by the petitioners (i.e., Grade 10) should control the determination of entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits.

The petitioners contend that since Camoral was assessed with a Grade 10 disability—indicating moderate limitations—the compensation should be partial rather than total.
The legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the POEA SEC, particularly Section 20-B, in conjunction with provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC).

Whether the prolonged period (exceeding 120 days) of Camoral’s incapacity to work constitutes permanent total disability.

The analysis involves determining if the persistent inability to perform his customary work, despite medical treatment, satisfies the legal criteria for permanent and total disability.
It examines the relevance of the 120-day and the extended 240-day period as specified in the POEA SEC and supported by jurisprudence.

Whether the appointment of a lawyer was justified due to the petitioners’ refusal to provide the full disability benefits under the contractual and statutory framework.
The issue also considers the applicable legal basis for awarding such fees in light of Article 2208 of the Civil Code.