G.R. No. 177103 - Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. vs. Nazal

On November 15, 2000, respondent Rainerio N. Nazal entered into a twelve-month employment contract as a cook with Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. for its principal, Bennet Shipping SA Liberia.
Prior employment engagements of Nazal with the petitioners include contracts from January 25, 1999 to September 14, 1999 and from February 12, 2000 to August 2000.
Nazal boarded the vessel M/V Rover on November 22, 2000 and completed his contract on November 24, 2001.

Upon his arrival in Manila after completing his contract, Nazal allegedly reported his health condition and his experiences on board the vessel to a representative named Ding Colorado.
He claimed that Colorado referred him to a company-designated physician who found that he was suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes.
Based on these alleged findings, Nazal requested compensation and medical assistance; however, the agency denied his request and purportedly advised him against further employment.

On May 18, 2002, Nazal consulted Dr. Virginia Nazal at Clinica Nazal regarding his health issues.
Approximately a year later, on May 3, 2003, he underwent further medical examination (including a random blood sugar test that read 339) at the same clinic.
On September 8, 2004, Dr. Nazal certified that Nazal was unfit to work as a seaman.
On September 29, 2004, Nazal sought treatment at the Philippine Heart Center where Dr. Efren Vicaldo diagnosed him with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and assigned him a disability rating of Grade X (20.15%), declaring him unfit to resume work as a seaman.

Nazal, contending that his ailments were contracted or aggravated during his employment with the petitioners, demanded permanent total disability compensation.
His complaint was filed after a significant delay, approximately two years and ten months after disembarking from the vessel.
The agency argued that his claim was barred by laches and that he failed to comply with the mandatory post-employment medical reporting requirement under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio, in a decision dated May 25, 2005, dismissed Nazal’s complaint primarily because he failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement; there was no evidence he reported his ailments to the vessel’s authorities.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the initial dismissal on September 20, 2005, awarding Nazal partial disability benefits and attorney’s fees based on Dr. Vicaldo’s disability rating.
Both parties later moved for reconsideration: Nazal sought conversion of his benefit from partial to permanent total disability, while the agency reiterated its arguments based on laches and non-compliance with post-employment reporting.
The NLRC, on November 30, 2005, denied both motions, and later, on October 31, 2006, also denied the agency’s urgent motion for reconsideration citing its superfluous and immaterial nature.

The agency elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, contesting that the CA erroneously considered its urgent motion as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
The CA dismissed the petition outright on the grounds that it was filed out of time and relied on the prohibition against a second motion for reconsideration as provided under the Rules of Court.
The agency contended that the two motions were based on distinct subject matters—one on the merits and the other on newly discovered evidence—and thus should not be conflated.

Nazal later petitioned the CA to convert his disability to permanent total disability through a separate proceeding, which led the petitioners to file a motion for leave to file a manifestation relating to his alleged forum shopping.
Despite these appearances and motions, Nazal ultimately passed away in October 2010 without filing any comments on the petitioners’ appeal.

Whether the CA erred in basing the filing period on the receipt of the NLRC resolution dated November 30, 2005, rather than the one dated October 31, 2006.
Whether the CA properly characterized the agency’s urgent motion for reconsideration as a prohibited second motion under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure.

Whether Nazal’s alleged ailments were contracted or aggravated during his employment with the petitioners.
Whether the absence of a medical report or certification from the company-designated physician undermines his claim for disability compensation.
The implications of Nazal’s delay in filing his complaint—specifically, how his subsequent employment as a seaman with another vessel affects the credibility of his disability claim.

Whether the NLRC and subsequently the CA overlooked or misappreciated significant evidence that could either substantiate or refute Nazal’s claims.
The proper standard of proof required in labor cases and if the agency’s failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement should bar Nazal’s claim conclusively.