Title
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Despabeladeras
Case
G.R. No. 209201
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2014
A seafarer's claim for disability compensation is upheld for temporary total disability benefits during medical treatment due to a wrist fracture, despite denial based on incomplete treatment and lack of disability assessment.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 209201)

Facts:

  • New Filipino Maritime Agencies Inc., St. Paul Maritime Corp., and Angelina T. Rivera (petitioners) filed a petition against Michael D. Despabeladeras (respondent).
  • Michael was hired as a Wiper on the vessel M/V Athens Highway with a nine-month contract and a monthly salary of US$415.00.
  • He underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea service before embarking on April 26, 2009.
  • On August 20, 2009, Michael slipped and fractured his left hand, diagnosed with an Ulna Styloid Fracture in Brunswick, Georgia.
  • After repatriation on August 28, 2009, he was treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, until February 10, 2010.
  • Michael claimed his condition did not improve and consulted another physician, Dr. Rogelio C. Catapang, who declared him unfit for work on January 16, 2010.
  • He failed to attend a follow-up appointment on February 17, 2010, and demanded disability benefits instead.
  • His claim was denied, leading him to file a complaint for disability compensation with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
  • The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding permanent total disability benefits, but the NLRC reversed this decision on appeal.
  • The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, applying the 120-day Presumptive Disability Rule.
  • Petitioners filed a petition for review, questioning the application of the 120-day rule and Michael's alleged abandonment of medical treatment.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' decisions.
  • It ruled that Michael was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits as he was still under temporary total disability and had not completed his medical treatment.
  • The Court emphasized that the 120-day rule is not a blanket rule and must consider the spec...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court clarified that the 120-day rule is significant but not absolute for determining permanent total disability.
  • The Court referenced Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., stating that the application of the 120-day rule depends on the specific circumstances and compliance with contractual obligations under the POEA-SEC.
  • Michael's failure to return fo...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.