Case Digest (G.R. No. 250085)
Facts:
Julie Fuentes Resurreccion v. Southfield Agencies, Inc., Brightnight Shipping & Investment Ltd., G.R. No. 250085, June 14, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Julie Fuentes Resurreccion (a seaman) sued Southfield Agencies, Inc. (the recruitment/placement agency), its foreign principal Brightnight Shipping & Investment, Ltd., and officer Arlene Bautista for total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees after he developed liver disease while employed as Third Engineer aboard M/V Eco Spitfire.On November 27, 2015 Southfield engaged petitioner and he boarded the vessel on November 30, 2015. Petitioner developed jaundice and related symptoms on January 12, 2016, was referred for treatment abroad, and was medically repatriated to the Philippines on February 5, 2016. The company-designated physician (CDP) at NGC Medical Specialist Clinic issued an assessment on February 16, 2016 finding the illness not work-related. Petitioner later consulted an independent physician, Dr. Radentor R. Viernes, who on July 28, 2016 opined that petitioner’s illness was work-related or work-aggravated and declared him permanently and totally unfit for sea duty.
Petitioner filed his complaint on September 9, 2016. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of factual or legal basis but, on equitable grounds, gave petitioner P60,000.00 as financial assistance. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA in a January 30, 2017 resolution, holding petitioner failed to satisfy the compensability requirements under Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), but noting petitioner had been afforded sickness allowance and medical assistance for the first month and thus was deemed paid. The NLRC denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) in a Decision dated October 24, 2018 (...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is this Court’s review proper despite the underlying factual nature of compensability—i.e., did the CA manifestly overlook undisputed facts justifying Rule 45 review?
- Was petitioner’s Liver Cirrhosis work-related and therefore compensable under the 2010 POEA-SEC?
- Is petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, attorney’s fees, and joint and several liability of re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)