Case Digest (G.R. No. 259982) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. (POMI) and V. Ships UK Ltd./Nordic American Tankers Limited, petitioners, versus Nicolas F. Bobiles, respondent. Bobiles was hired by POMI as a pumpman on the vessel Nordic Vega starting October 17, 2016, with a basic salary of USD 764, a nine-month tour of duty, and subject to terms covered by the Filipino ITF IBF TCC AMOSUP Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as approved by the POEA. Before deployment, Bobiles underwent medical tests and was declared fit for work. While performing his duties on January 27, 2017, he suffered a back injury when lifting a welded pump, which resulted in severe pain and eventual immobility. Medical consultations aboard and overseas diagnosed him with L2-L3 instability and L4-L5 disc herniation with radiculopathy. Despite ongoing treatment and physiotherapy, Bobiles’ condition did not improve, leading to a medical assessment declaring him permanently disabled and unfit for sea duty by a second opinion Case Digest (G.R. No. 259982) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Employment Background
- Petitioners: Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. (POMI), a domestic manning agency licensed in the Philippines, and V. Ships UK Ltd./Nordic American Tankers Limited (V. Ships UK Ltd.), a foreign shipping entity with POMI as local agent.
- Respondent: Nicolas F. Bobiles, employed as a pumpman on the vessel Nordic Vega.
- Bobiles was hired on October 17, 2016, under a contract approved by the POEA and covered by the Filipino ITF IBF TCC AMOSUP Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
- Employment Terms and Conditions
- Salary: Basic USD 764.00; overtime pay provisions; 11 vacation leave days per month.
- Work schedule: 44 hours per week with additional compensation for overtime.
- Medical clearance: Bobiles underwent and passed initial medical tests declaring him fit for duty.
- Incident and Medical Condition
- January 27, 2017: Bobiles injured his back while servicing welded pumps on board, causing severe radiating pain.
- Medical response: Master consulted CIRM, prescribed medication and bed rest.
- Despite treatment, pain persisted; Bobiles remained incapacitated on board for two weeks.
- February 27, 2017: Disembarked in India; diagnosed with L2-L3 Instability; repatriated February 28, 2017.
- Subsequent treatment and examinations in the Philippines revealed severe lumbar spine injuries including disc bulges and herniation with radiculopathy.
- Disability Assessment and Grievances
- Company doctor’s final assessment on September 4, 2017, was Grade 11 disability (slight rigidity/1/3 loss of lifting power).
- Bobiles refused this assessment, citing persistent disability and inability to work as a seaman.
- Grievance proceedings failed to reach amicable settlement as Bobiles’ representative moved to terminate.
- Legal Proceedings
- Bobiles filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits, unpaid sick wages, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- NCMB ruled in favor of Bobiles, awarding total permanent disability compensation (USD 102,308.00) and attorney’s fees of 10% of the amount.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the disability award but reduced it to USD 60,000.00 and upheld attorney’s fees.
- Petitioners filed for a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court primarily contesting the disability rating and attorney’s fees awards.
Issues:
- Whether the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final disability assessment within 120 days (or justified extended 240 days) deems Bobiles as totally and permanently disabled.
- Whether the referral to a third doctor under the POEA-SEC is mandatory given the company doctor's failure to give a final medical assessment.
- Whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under Article 111 of the Labor Code in this case.
- Whether attorney’s fees may be awarded under Article 2208 paragraphs (2) and (8) of the Civil Code given the nature of the case.
- Whether attorney’s fees are justified under Article 2208(11), the catch-all provision of the Civil Code, based on the facts of the case.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)