G.R. No. 123891 - Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) is the petitioner in a case initially decided by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and subsequently by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The case involves a complaint filed by private respondent Carlos Nietes, a licensed Captain/Master Mariner, who alleged entitlement to various benefits including disability benefits, sickness wages, and reimbursement of medical expenses.

Private respondent was employed by PTC from March 1985 until May 17, 1990.
He served aboard various vessels, with his last assignment being on the M/V MA. ROSARIO, where he acted as Master from April 11, 1990, to May 17, 1990.
During his employment, he was a member in good standing of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), an affiliate of the International Transport Federation (ITF) of London, which deducted union dues and insurance premiums from his salary.
His monthly salary as Master was US$1,500.00.

From May 10 to May 17, 1990, private respondent was hospitalized at Moji Hospital in Moji, Japan, upon the initiative of the vessel’s owners.
Upon repatriation to the Philippines on May 17, 1990, he was instructed by both PTC and AMOSUP to report to the Seamen’s Hospital, which is owned and operated by AMOSUP.
On May 19, 1990, a company-accredited physician, Dr. George Matti of the Seamen’s Hospital, issued a medical certificate declaring him unfit for work and advising continued treatment/medication.

After being refused admission at the Seamen’s Hospital, private respondent sought and received treatment at the Sto. NiAo Medical Specialist and Emergency Clinic on an out-patient basis from his attending physician, Dra. Geraldine B. Emperador.
Her diagnosis confirmed that private respondent was unfit to serve as Master due to his medical condition.

Private respondent, through legal counsel led by Atty. Oscar Torres and later Atty. Augusto Arreza, Jr., claimed entitlement to:

In a supplemental complaint, he also sought a refund of medical expenses totaling P34,411.00 (P30,411.00 for expenses plus a professional fee of P4,000.00), supported by receipts.
On March 16, 1995, the POEA Adjudication Office issued a decision awarding private respondent US$21,000.00 (or its peso equivalent) for disability benefits and P34,114.00 for medical expense reimbursement, along with attorney’s fees as part of the award.

PTC appealed the POEA decision to the NLRC, which affirmed it with modification by deleting the attorney’s fees award for lack of factual and legal basis.
PTC filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC on December 29, 1995, which was later denied.
Petitioner (PTC) now challenges the NLRC decision on several grounds regarding the award of benefits and the handling of evidence related to private respondent’s disability and medical treatment.

The award of disability benefit was flawed due to the absence of proof of private respondent’s permanent disability and the degree thereof.
The NLRC allegedly disregarded that any lapse in determining the degree of disability was solely due to private respondent’s fault.
Sick wages were awarded for the full period of 120 days without a declaration of unfitness to work or a determination of the permanent disability degree.
The reimbursement for medical expenses was granted despite the treatment being rendered by a physician not accredited by PTC.

Private respondent substantially complied with the POEA Standard Employment Contract requirements by, upon instructions, reporting to the Seamen’s Hospital for treatment.
Two licensed physicians, one being Dr. George Matti (PTC’s accredited physician) and another (Dra. Geraldine B. Emperador), examined and diagnosed him with congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy, deeming him unfit to work.
Strict evidentiary rules were not deemed applicable in compensation proceedings, where probability is used as the test of proof rather than absolute certainty.

Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming and modifying the POEA’s decision awarding benefits to private respondent.

Did the NLRC err in awarding disability benefits in the absence of detailed evidence showing the degree of permanent disability?
Was it proper to award sick wages for the full prescribed period of 120 days without a formal declaration of unfitness or an assessment of the extent of the disability?
Can reimbursement for medical expenses be granted when the treatment was provided by a physician not designated or accredited by the petitioner, in apparent violation of the POEA Standard Contract for Seamen?
Whether the actions and decisions of the NLRC were tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.