G.R. No. 199162 - Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. vs. Dedace, Jr.

On 18 June 2003, petitioner Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. (PhilAMan), a domestic corporation, engaged respondent Aniano P. Dedace, Jr. to work on board the vessel M/V APL Shanghai on behalf of its principal, Dohle (IOM) Limited.
The employment contract specified a nine-month duration, a position as Able Seaman, a basic monthly salary of USD 465.00, 48 working hours per week, overtime pay at USD 2.79 per hour, and vacation leave with pay of USD 78.00 per month.

In January 2004, Dedace began experiencing intermittent pains in his lower right abdomen and left groin.
On 20 February 2004, he was admitted to the Gleneagles Maritime Medical Centre in Singapore and initially evaluated by Dr. Lee Choi Kheong, who suspected multiple right liver nodules (possible haemangiomata) and a right kidney cyst.
Subsequent tests including a CT Scan confirmed a diagnosis of Disseminated Sepsis with Multiple Liver Abscesses. The medical report detailed the reduction in the number and size of liver lesions after antibiotic therapy.
Dedace was repatriated to the Philippines on 1 March 2004 and subsequently underwent further evaluation and imaging (MRI on 27 March 2004) by Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz and Dr. Cesar S. Co, which found benign liver nodules and a non-enhancing kidney lesion.

Upon receiving the MRI report, Phil-Man inquired with Dr. Cruz on the work-relatedness of Dedace’s illness.
In a reply dated 20 May 2004, Dr. Cruz relayed the opinion of a gastroenterologist that deduced the lesions were not work-related, though the response was not a definitive medical assessment.
On 7 June 2004, Phil-Man formally notified Dedace that his illness was not considered work-related, terminated further payments and medical treatment, and denied any additional claims.

Dissatisfied, Dedace filed claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking permanent and total disability benefits.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that while Dedace’s illness was not among the compensable occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, he was entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to 30 days of pay, after deducting an already paid 90-day allowance.
The NLRC, in its 6 March 2007 resolution and subsequent 22 October 2007 resolution, affirmed the LA’s decision, holding that the dispute over work-relatedness was resolved by Dr. Cruz’s opinion, despite not amounting to a complete medical assessment.

Dedace then elevated his case to the Court of Appeals (CA) where his petition was granted, reversing the NLRC’s rulings.
The CA held that the petitioners (PhilAMan and Dohle) failed to overcome the statutory disputable presumption that Dedace’s illness was work-related due to the inadequacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment.
Consequently, the CA awarded Dedace permanent total disability benefits amounting to USD 60,000.00 (or its peso equivalent), sickness allowance for 30 days (USD 465.00), and attorney’s fees of 10% of the total monetary award.
The petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in the 24 October 2011 resolution.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a patent and reversible error by reversing the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter and awarding respondent Dedace permanent total disability benefits.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Dedace.